```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 105506-105534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30751]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0930; FRL-10403-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Florida; Second Planning Period Regional Haze 
Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revisions 
submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 
on October 8, 2021, and supplemented on June 14, 2024, and October 28, 
2024, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's 
second planning period. Florida's SIP submissions for the second 
planning period address the requirement that states must periodically 
revise their long-term strategies (LTSs) for making reasonable progress 
toward the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any 
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional 
haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. These SIP submissions also 
address other applicable requirements for the second planning period of 
the regional haze program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to 
sections 110 and 169A of the Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 27, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2021-0930, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pearlene Williams-Miles, Multi-Air 
Pollutant Coordination Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, 
Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. 
Williams-Miles can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9144 or 
electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
    A. Regional Haze Background
    B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

[[Page 105507]]

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Planning 
Period
    A. Identification of Class I Areas
    B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)
    C. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional Haze
    D. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward 
the RPGs
    G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager (FLM) 
Coordination
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Florida's Regional Haze Submissions for the 
Second Planning Period
    A. Identification of Class I Areas
    B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the URP
    C. LTS for Regional Haze
    D. RPGs
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Regional Haze Plan Requirements
    F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward 
the RPGs
    G. Requirements for State and FLM Coordination
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    On October 8, 2021, and supplemented on June 14, 2024, and October 
28, 2024, FDEP submitted revisions to its SIP to address regional haze 
for the second planning period. FDEP made these SIP submissions to 
satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to 
CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.\1\ EPA is proposing to 
find that the Florida regional haze SIP submissions for the second 
planning period (``Haze Plan'') meet the applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements, and thus, EPA also proposes to approve 
Florida's submissions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2021 Plan includes a request to remove source-specific 
and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) limits and conditions 
from the Florida SIP, which Florida provided to address BART and 
source-specific reasonable progress requirements during the first 
planning period. On June 14, 2024, FDEP withdrew this request. Thus, 
EPA will not act on this portion of Florida's 2021 Plan. FDEP's 
request to withdraw the portion of the 2021 plan that requests the 
removal of the first period planning period source specific and BART 
limits may be found the Materials to be Removed section of the 2024 
Supplement.
    \2\ ``Haze Plan'' collectively refers to the October 8, 2021, 
June 14, 2024, and October 28, 2024, SIP submissions. The phrase 
``2021 Plan'' refers to the October 8, 2021, SIP submission; ``2024 
Supplement'' refers to the June 14, 2024, SIP submission which 
supplements the 2021 Plan; and ``Second 2024 Supplement'' refers to 
the October 28, 2024, SIP submission which also supplements the 2021 
Plan. Each submission contains an administrative file which provides 
the specific permit conditions FDEP requests for incorporation into 
the Florida SIP under the Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans

A. Regional Haze Background

    In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for 
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas, 
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\3\ See CAA 
169A. The CAA establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any 
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade 
air pollution.'' See CAA 169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs EPA to 
promulgate regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting 
this national goal. See CAA 169A(a)(4). On December 2, 1980, EPA 
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in mandatory 
Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas'') 
that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group 
of sources. (45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980) These regulations, codified 
at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the first phase of EPA's 
efforts to address visibility impairment. In 1990, Congress added 
section 169B to the CAA to further address visibility impairment, 
specifically, impairment from regional haze. See CAA 169B. EPA 
promulgated the RHR, codified at 40 CFR 51.308,\4\ on July 1, 1999. See 
64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999. These regional haze regulations are a 
central component of EPA's comprehensive visibility protection program 
for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal 
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness 
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all 
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 
CAA 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas 
to which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply 
is in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \4\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze 
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, EPA also promulgated regulations 
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class 
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter 
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional 
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus are 
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located 
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair 
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse 
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur 
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in 
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia 
(NH3)). Precursor pollutants react in the atmosphere to form 
fine particulate matter (particles less than or equal to 2.5 
micrometers ([micro]m) in diameter, PM2.5), which impairs 
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment 
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible 
distance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility 
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which 
is the principal metric defined and used by the RHR. Under many 
circumstances, a change in one deciview will be perceived by the 
human eye to be the same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview 
is unitless. It is proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric 
extinction of light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to 
its being scattered and absorbed as it passes through the 
atmosphere. Atmospheric light extinction (bext) is a metric used for 
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters 
(Mm-1). EPA's ``Guidance on Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019 
Guidance'') offers the flexibility for the use of light extinction 
in certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use in 
calculations than deciviews since it is not a logarithmic function. 
See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16, 19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for 
the deciview is 10 ln (bext)/10 Mm-1). See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR 
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in 
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which 
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment 
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions 
to address such impairment. See CAA 169A(b)(2); \6\ see also 40 CFR 
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional 
haze SIP revisions); 64 FR 35768, July 1, 1999. Under the CAA, each SIP 
submission must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy 
for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal,'' CAA 
169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP submissions also had to address 
the statutory requirement that certain older, larger sources of 
visibility impairing pollutants install and operate BART. CAA 
169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d), (e). States' first regional haze SIPs 
were due by December 17, 2007, 40

[[Page 105508]]

CFR 51.308(b), with subsequent SIP submissions containing updated LTS 
originally due July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter. See 64 FR 
35768, July 1, 1999. EPA established in the 1999 RHR that all states 
either have Class I areas within their borders or ``contain sources 
whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional 
haze in a Class I area''; therefore, all states must submit regional 
haze SIPs.\7\ Id. at 35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to 
submit plans addressing out-of-state Class I areas by providing that 
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class 
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by 
emissions from within the State.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
    \7\ In addition to each of the 50 states, EPA also concluded 
that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia must also submit 
regional haze SIPs because they either contain a Class I area or 
contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to 
contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b), 
(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Much of the focus in the first planning period of the regional haze 
program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on satisfying states' 
BART obligations. First planning period SIPs were additionally required 
to contain LTSs for making reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal, of which BART is one component. The core required 
elements for the first planning period SIPs (other than BART) are laid 
out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those provisions require that states 
containing Class I areas establish RPGs that are measured in deciviews 
and reflect the anticipated visibility conditions at the end of the 
period including from implementation of states' LTSs. The first 
planning period RPGs were required to provide for an improvement in 
visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the 
implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
least impaired days over the same period. In establishing the RPGs for 
any Class I area in a state, the state was required to consider four 
statutory factors (also referenced herein as ``the four factors''): the 
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and 
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining 
useful life of any potentially affected sources. See CAA 169A(g)(1); 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five-
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e., 
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for 
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed 
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of 
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural 
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the uniform 
rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to help states 
assess the amount of progress they are making toward the national 
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\8\ See 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that states' 
LTSs must include the ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance, 
schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable 
progress goals.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In establishing their LTSs, 
states are required to consult with other states that also contribute 
to visibility impairment in a given Class I area and include all 
measures necessary to obtain their shares of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii). Section 
51.308(d) also contains seven additional factors states must consider 
in formulating their LTSs, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as 
provisions governing monitoring and other implementation plan 
requirements. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally, the 1999 RHR required 
states to submit periodic progress reports--SIP revisions due every 
five years that contain information on states' implementation of their 
regional haze plans and an assessment of whether anything additional is 
needed to make reasonable progress, see 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h)--and to 
consult with the FLMs \9\ responsible for each Class I area according 
to the requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide 
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assess the rate of 
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The 
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was 
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was 
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs 
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming 
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined 
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or 
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However, 
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal 
must be reached. See 64 FR 35731-32. That is, the URP and the 2064 
date are not enforceable targets but are rather tools that ``allow 
for analytical comparisons between the rate of progress that would 
be achieved by the state's chosen set of control measures and the 
URP.'' See 82 FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017.
    \9\ EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as ``the 
Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal Class I 
area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park Commission.'' See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2017, EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR (82 FR 
3078) that apply for the second and subsequent planning periods. The 
2017 rulemaking made several changes to the requirements for regional 
haze SIPs to clarify states' obligations and streamline certain 
regional haze requirements. The revisions to the regional haze program 
for the second and subsequent planning periods focused on the 
requirement that states' SIPs contain LTSs for making reasonable 
progress toward the national visibility goal. The reasonable progress 
requirements as revised in the 2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 
2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other 
changes, the 2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the deadline for states to 
submit their second planning period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July 
31, 2021, clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between 
RPGs and the LTSs, and focused on making visibility improvements on the 
days with the most anthropogenic visibility impairment, as opposed to 
the days with the most visibility impairment overall. EPA also revised 
requirements of the visibility protection program related to periodic 
progress reports and FLM consultation. The specific requirements 
applicable to second planning period regional haze SIP submissions are 
addressed in detail below.
    EPA provided guidance to the states for their second planning 
period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR Revisions as 
well as in subsequent stand-alone guidance documents. In August 2019, 
EPA issued its 2019 Guidance.\10\ On July 8, 2021, EPA issued a 
memorandum containing ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 
Clarifications Memo'').\11\ Additionally, EPA further clarified the 
recommended procedures for processing ambient visibility data and 
optionally adjusting the URP to account for international anthropogenic 
and prescribed fire impacts in two technical guidance documents: the 
December 2018 ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for 
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018 
Visibility Tracking Guidance''),\12\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation 
for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data 
Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for the

[[Page 105509]]

Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program'' and 
associated Technical Addendum (``2020 Data Completeness Memo'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See footnote 4.
    \11\ ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period.'' EPA 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park 
(July 8, 2021). https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
    \12\ ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for 
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program.'' 
https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional. EPA 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park 
(December 20, 2018).
    \13\ ``Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted 
Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility 
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze 
Program.'' https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program. 
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 
Park (June 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, EPA intends the 
second planning period of the regional haze program to secure 
meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that build on 
the significant progress states have achieved to date. The Agency also 
recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress are state-
specific and that, based on states' and sources' individual 
circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility 
impairing pollutants will vary from state to state. While there exist 
many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming 
emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states 
to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify 
further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal 
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See, 
generally, 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's 
determination that a visibility protection program is needed in 
addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs, as further 
emission reductions may be necessary to adequately protect visibility 
in Class I areas throughout the country.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how 
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of 
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of 
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised 
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.'') 
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not 
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Because the air pollutants affecting visibility in Class I areas 
can be transported over long distances, successful implementation of 
the regional haze program requires long-term, regional coordination 
among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that have responsibility for 
Class I areas and the emissions that impact visibility in those areas. 
In order to address regional haze, states need to develop strategies in 
coordination with one another, considering the effect of emissions from 
one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs),\15\ which include representation from state and 
tribal governments, EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the 
first planning period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical 
information to better understand how emissions from state and tribal 
land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the development of 
regional strategies to reduce emissions of PM and other pollutants 
leading to regional haze, and help states meet the consultation 
requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this 
document, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. (SESARM), one 
of the five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of state 
and local agencies and tribal governments established to initiate and 
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, 
visibility, and other air quality issues in the Southeast. SESARM's 
coalition to conduct regional haze work is referred to as Visibility 
Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS).\16\ 
Member states, local air agencies, and tribal governments of VISTAS are 
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia; the local air 
agencies, represented by the President of Metro 4 or designee; \17\ and 
the Tribes located within the VISTAS region, represented by the Eastern 
Band of the Cherokee Indians. The Federal partner members of VISTAS are 
EPA, U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The VISTAS technical work under SESARM is described at this 
website: https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program.
    \17\ Metro 4 is a Tennessee corporation which represents the 
local air pollution control agencies in EPA's Region 4 in the 
Southeast. See https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/metro-4-about-us.
    \18\ The NPS, FWS, and USFS are collectively referred to as the 
``Federal Land Managers'' or ``FLMs'' throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Planning 
Period

    Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional 
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second 
planning period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021. Each 
state's SIP must contain a LTS for making reasonable progress toward 
meeting the national goal of remedying any existing and preventing any 
future anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. See CAA 
169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays out the process by 
which states determine what constitutes their LTSs, with the order of 
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) through (3) generally mirroring 
the order of the steps in the reasonable progress analysis \19\ and 
(f)(4) through (6) containing additional related requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that the Agency was 
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike 
the structure in Sec.  51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning 
sequence.'' See 82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Broadly speaking, a state first must identify the Class I areas 
within the state and determine the Class I areas outside the state in 
which visibility may be affected by emissions from the state. These are 
the Class I areas that must be addressed in the state's LTS. See 40 CFR 
51.308(f) introductory text, (f)(2). For each Class I area within its 
borders, a state must then calculate the baseline, current, and natural 
visibility conditions for that area, as well as the visibility 
improvement made to date and the URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each 
state having a Class I area and/or emissions that may affect visibility 
in a Class I area must then develop a LTS that includes the enforceable 
emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are 
necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable 
progress determination is based on applying the four factors in CAA 
section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility impairing pollutants that 
the state has selected to assess for controls for the second planning 
period.
    Additionally, as further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR 
51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five ``additional factors'' \20\ 
that states must consider in developing their long-term strategies. See 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state evaluates potential emission reduction 
measures for those selected sources and determines which are necessary 
to make reasonable progress. Those measures are then incorporated into 
the state's LTS. After a state has developed its LTS, it then 
establishes RPGs for each Class I area within its borders by modeling 
the visibility impacts of all reasonable progress

[[Page 105510]]

controls at the end of the second planning period, i.e., in 2028, as 
well as the impacts of other requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include 
reasonable progress controls not only for sources in the state in which 
the Class I area is located, but also for sources in other states that 
contribute to visibility impairment in that area. The RPGs are then 
compared to the baseline visibility conditions and the URP to ensure 
that progress is being made toward the statutory goal of preventing any 
future and remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment 
in Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in Sec.  
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA 
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must 
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) 
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the 
second planning period must address the requirements in 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing 
progress toward the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements 
for FLM consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and 
SIP revisions. See 40 CFR 51.308(i).
    A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP 
revisions to EPA according to the requirements applicable to all SIP 
revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169A(b)(2); CAA 
110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the Agency and the 
public under the CAA. If EPA finds that a state fails to make a 
required SIP revision, or if EPA finds that a state's SIP is incomplete 
or if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a Federal 
implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable requirements. 
See CAA 110(c)(1).

A. Identification of Class I Areas

    The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to 
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders, 
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999 
RHR, EPA determined that all states contribute to visibility impairment 
in at least one Class I area, 64 FR 35720-22, and explained that the 
statute and regulations lay out an ``extremely low triggering 
threshold'' for determining ``whether States should be required to 
engage in air quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to 
determining the need for control of emissions from sources within their 
State.'' Id. at 35721.
    A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its 
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing 
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not 
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's 
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might 
be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the 
determinations previously made for the first planning period. See 2019 
Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which Class I areas 
may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the requirement in 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical basis, including 
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on 
which the State is relying to determine the emission reduction measures 
that are necessary to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class 
I Federal area it affects.''

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)

    As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second 
planning period is providing for reasonable progress toward the 
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The 
requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I 
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for 
each such Class I area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance \21\ 
provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying their 
obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing 
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, 
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the 
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires. 
See 82 FR 3103-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies 
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking 
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule'' which can be found at 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/tracking.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Research Triangle Park (September 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of 
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions 
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for 
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or 
current visibility conditions).\22\ The RHR provides that the relevant 
sets of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20 percent 
clearest days (the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with 
the lowest values of the deciview index) and 20 percent most impaired 
days (the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the 
highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility impairment).\23\ See 40 CFR 
51.301. A state must calculate visibility conditions for both the 20 
percent clearest days and 20 percent most impaired days for the 
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for 
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current 
visibility conditions). See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must 
also calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most 
impaired days \24\ by estimating the conditions that would exist on 
those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. See 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, states must then 
calculate, for each Class I area, the amount of progress made since the 
baseline period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left to achieve 
in order to reach natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The ``deciview index'' means a value for a day that is 
derived from calculated or measured light extinction, such that 
uniform increments of the index correspond to uniform incremental 
changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from 
pristine to very obscured. The deciview index is calculated using 
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 
aerosol measurements. See 40 CFR 51.301.
    \23\ This notice also refers to the 20 percent clearest and 20 
percent most anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and 
``most impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days, 
respectively.
    \24\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error 
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural 
conditions values. The rule says, ``most impaired days or the 
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and 
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected 
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final 
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098: 
``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of 
`or' has been corrected to `and' to indicate that natural visibility 
conditions for both the most impaired days and the clearest days 
must be based on available monitoring information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must 
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and 
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the 
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that 
would need to be achieved during each planning period in order to 
achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is 
used in later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for 
informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark 
against which to assess a Class I area's rate of visibility 
improvement.\25\ Additionally, in the

[[Page 105511]]

2017 RHR Revisions, EPA provided states the option of proposing to 
adjust the endpoint of the URP to account for impacts of anthropogenic 
sources outside the United States and/or impacts of certain types of 
wildland prescribed fires. These adjustments, which must be approved by 
EPA, are intended to avoid any perception that states should compensate 
for impacts from international anthropogenic sources and to give states 
the flexibility to determine that limiting the use of wildland 
prescribed fire is not necessary for reasonable progress. See 82 FR 
3107, footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e., 
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making 
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a state from using the 
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed 
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy 
the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing 
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, 
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020 
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data 
completeness language referenced in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides 
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.

C. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional Haze

    The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a LTS that 
addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a state's borders 
and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions from the state. 
The LTS ``must include the enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through 
(iv).'' See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress that is 
``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory factors 
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control options 
for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as 
a ``four-factor'' analysis (FFA). The outcome of that analysis is the 
emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of 
sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable progress toward 
the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission 
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress may 
be either new, additional control measures for a source or the existing 
emission reduction measures that a source is already implementing. See 
2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-10. Such measures 
must be represented by ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance 
schedules, and other measures'' in a state's LTS in its SIP. See 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2).
    Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the FFA. The 
first step of this analysis entails selecting the sources to be 
evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end, the RHR 
requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary sources or 
groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of visibility 
impairing pollutants for potential control analysis (i.e., FFA). See 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is which 
visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As EPA previously 
explained, consistent with the first planning period, EPA generally 
expects that each state will analyze at least SO2 and 
NOX in selecting sources and determining control measures. 
See 2019 Guidance at 12 and 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. A state that 
chooses not to consider at least these two pollutants should 
demonstrate why such consideration would be unreasonable. See 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 4.
    While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019 
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not 
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that 
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each 
implementation period is consistent with the Regional Haze Rule, which 
sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a state may 
not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a given SIP 
revision.'' See 2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that source 
selection is the basis of all subsequent control determinations, a 
reasonable source selection process ``should be designed and conducted 
to ensure that source selection results in a set of pollutants and 
sources the evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully 
reduce their contributions to visibility impairment.'' See 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 3.
    EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state has 
an obligation to submit a LTS that addresses the regional haze 
visibility impairment that results from emissions from within that 
state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state contribution 
to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a meaningful 
portion of the state's total contribution to visibility impairment in 
Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its largest in-
state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-of-state 
contributors. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 RHR 
Revisions EPA explained that ``[a] state should not fail to address 
its many relatively low-impact sources merely because it only has 
such sources and another state has even more low-impact sources and/
or some high impact sources.'' Responses to Comments on Protection 
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed 
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016). (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 87-88, 
available at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection 
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be 
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that 
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it 
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.'' 
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for 
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by 
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or 
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as 
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to 
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are 
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second planning 
period.\27\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the 
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the 
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such 
requirements.'' See CAA 169A(g)(1). EPA has explained that the FFA is 
an assessment of potential emission reduction measures (i.e., control 
options) for sources; ``use of the terms `compliance' and `subject to 
such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1) strongly indicates that 
Congress intended the relevant determination to be the requirements 
with which sources would have to comply in order to satisfy the CAA's 
reasonable progress mandate.'' See 82 FR 3091. Thus, for each source a 
state has selected for an FFA,\28\ it must consider a ``meaningful

[[Page 105512]]

set'' of technically feasible control options for reducing emissions of 
visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at 3088. The 2019 Guidance 
provides that ``[a] state must reasonably pick and justify the measures 
that it will consider, recognizing that there is no statutory or 
regulatory requirement to consider all technically feasible measures or 
any particular measures. A range of technically feasible measures 
available to reduce emissions would be one way to justify a reasonable 
set.'' See 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable 
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four 
statutory factors. See CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source 
categories, a state may also consider additional emission reduction 
measures for inclusion in its LTS, e.g., from other newly adopted, 
on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for sources not 
selected for four-factor analysis for the second planning period.
    \28\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as 
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying 
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to 
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility 
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of 
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy 
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' See 82 
FR 3088. However, not all approaches to grouping sources for four-
factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of 
grouping sources in any particular instance will depend on the 
circumstances and the manner in which grouping is conducted. If it 
is feasible to establish and enforce different requirements for 
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be 
quantified for those sources or subgroups, then states should make a 
separate reasonable progress determination for each source or 
subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what 
constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: ``A 
reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of 
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' See 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other 
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction measures for sources), EPA 
explained that states should generally analyze efficiency improvements 
for sources' existing measures as control options in their FFAs, as in 
many cases such improvements are reasonable given that they typically 
involve only additional operation and maintenance costs. Additionally, 
the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that states that have assumed a 
higher emission rate than a source has achieved or could potentially 
achieve using its existing measures should also consider lower emission 
rates as potential control options. That is, a state should consider a 
source's recent actual and projected emission rates to determine if it 
could reasonably attain lower emission rates with its existing 
measures. If so, the state should analyze the lower emission rate as a 
control option for reducing emissions. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 
7. EPA's recommendations to analyze potential efficiency improvements 
and achievable lower emission rates apply to both sources that have 
been selected for FFA and those that have forgone an FFA on the basis 
of existing ``effective controls.'' See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 
10.
    After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for 
the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the 
four factors with regard to each option identified. EPA has also 
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have 
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility 
benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory 
factors.\29\ The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types 
of information that can be used to characterize the four factors (with 
or without visibility), as well as ways in which states might 
reasonably consider and balance that information to determine which of 
the potential control options is necessary to make reasonable progress. 
See 2019 Guidance at 30-36. The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains 
further guidance on how states can reasonably consider modeled 
visibility impacts or benefits in the context of an FFA. See 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 12-13, 14-15. Specifically, EPA explained that 
while visibility can reasonably be used when comparing and choosing 
between multiple reasonable control options, it should not be used to 
summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four statutory 
factors. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. Ultimately, while states 
have discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what 
level of control is needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a 
state ``must include in its implementation plan a description of how 
the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the measure 
for inclusion in its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of 
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed 
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 
Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to 
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are 
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors. 
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal must be 
included in a state's LTS and in its SIP.\30\ If the outcome of an FFA 
is a new, additional emission reduction measure for a source, that new 
measure is necessary to make reasonable progress toward remedying 
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment and must be included in 
the SIP. If the outcome of an FFA is that no new measures are 
reasonable for a source, continued implementation of the source's 
existing measures is generally necessary to prevent future emission 
increases and thus to make reasonable progress toward the second part 
of the national visibility goal: preventing future anthropogenic 
visibility impairment. See CAA 169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of 
an FFA is that no new measures are necessary to make reasonable 
progress, the source's existing measures are generally necessary to 
make reasonable progress and must be included in the SIP. However, 
there may be circumstances in which a state can demonstrate that a 
source's existing measures are not necessary to make reasonable 
progress. Specifically, if a state can demonstrate that a source will 
continue to implement its existing measures and will not increase its 
emission rate, it may not be necessary to have those measures in the 
LTS in order to prevent future emission increases and future visibility 
impairment. EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further explanation 
and guidance on how states may demonstrate that a source's existing 
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 8-10. If the state can make such a 
demonstration, it need not include a source's existing measures in the 
LTS or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include 
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission 
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See 
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke 
management programs may choose to submit their SMP to EPA for 
inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do so. See, e.g., 82 
FR 3108-09 (requirement to consider smoke management practices and 
smoke management programs under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not 
require states to adopt such practices or programs into their SIPs, 
although they may elect to do so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with source selection, the characterization of information on 
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including 
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four 
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four 
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that 
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but 
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to 
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances. 
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important 
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for

[[Page 105513]]

its decision making so that the public and EPA can comprehend and 
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to 
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make 
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the 
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on 
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make 
reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through 
the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a 
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has 
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit 
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their 
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the 
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored 
to the statute.\31\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission 
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must 
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and 
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir. 
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013); 
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf. 
also Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d 
Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 
461, 485, 490 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to 
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be 
included in a state's LTS for making reasonable progress. Additionally, 
the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five 
``additional factors'' \32\ that states must consider in developing 
their LTSs: (1) emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution 
control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment (RAVI); (2) measures to reduce the impacts of 
construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement 
schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire 
used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and 
smoke management programs; and (5) the anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. The 2019 Guidance 
provides that a state may satisfy this requirement by considering these 
additional factors in the process of selecting sources for an FFA, when 
performing that analysis, or both, and that not every one of the 
additional factors needs to be considered at the same stage of the 
process. See 2019 Guidance at 21. EPA provided further guidance on the 
five additional factors in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining 
that a state should generally not reject cost-effective and otherwise 
reasonable controls merely because there have been emission reductions 
since the first planning period owing to other ongoing air pollution 
control programs or merely because visibility is otherwise projected to 
improve at Class I areas. Additionally, states generally should not 
rely on these additional factors to summarily assert that the state has 
already made sufficient progress and, therefore, no sources need to be 
selected or no new controls are needed regardless of the outcome of 
FFAs. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in Sec.  
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA 
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must 
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state 
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with 
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated 
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area. 
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area 
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control 
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission 
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter- 
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions 
strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO 
processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees 
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are 
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must 
include those measures in its SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). 
Additionally, the RHR requires that states that contribute to 
visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission 
reduction measures the other contributing states have identified as 
being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. See 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to consider or 
adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines 
those measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that 
state must document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the 
disagreement. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). EPA will consider the 
technical information and explanations presented by the submitting 
state and the state with which it disagrees when considering whether to 
approve the state's SIP. See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all 
circumstances, a state must document in its SIP submission all 
substantive consultations with other contributing states. See 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).

D. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    RPGs ``measure the progress that is projected to be achieved by the 
control measures states have determined are necessary to make 
reasonable progress based on a four-factor analysis.'' See 82 FR 3091. 
Their primary purpose is to assist the public and EPA in assessing the 
reasonableness of states' LTSs for making reasonable progress toward 
the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii) and (iv). 
States in which Class I areas are located must establish two RPGs--one 
representing visibility conditions on the clearest days and one 
representing visibility on the most anthropogenically impaired days--
for each area within their borders. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The two 
RPGs, measured in deciviews, are intended to reflect the projected 
impacts, on each set of days, of the emission reduction measures the 
state with the Class I area and other contributing states have included 
in their LTSs for the second planning period.\33\ The RPGs also account 
for the projected impacts of implementing other CAA requirements, 
including non-SIP based requirements. Because RPGs are the modeled 
result of the measures in states' LTSs (as well as other measures 
required under the CAA), they cannot be determined before states have 
conducted their FFAs and determined the control measures that are 
necessary to make reasonable progress.\34\ See 2021 Clarifications Memo 
at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the 
measures all contributing states include in their long-term 
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses and of control 
determinations by other states, other on-going emissions changes, a 
particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control measures and 
emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the end of the 
planning period. The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for 
addressing the timing of RPG calculations when states are developing 
their long-term strategies on disparate schedules, as well as for 
adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. See 2019 Guidance at 
47-48.
    \34\ The 2019 Guidance allows for the possibility of post-
modeling adjustments to the RPGs to account for the fact that final 
LTS decisions for the State or for other States may not be known 
until late in the process, or even after SIPs are submitted. See 
2019 Guidance at 46-48. See also, 82 FR 3078, 3080 (January 10, 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the second planning period, the RPGs are set for 2028. RPGs are 
not enforceable targets, 40 CFR

[[Page 105514]]

51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ``provide a way for the states to check 
the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] against the goals for 
visibility improvement.'' See 2019 Guidance at 46. While states are not 
legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in 
their RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term 
strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an 
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline 
period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days 
since the baseline period.'' Thus, states are required to have emission 
reduction measures in their LTSs that are projected to achieve 
visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better than 
the baseline period and shows no degradation on the clearest days 
compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline 
period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility 
condition--the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-
2004. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR 3097-98.
    So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of 
progress a state is making toward the national visibility goal, the RHR 
requires states with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the most 
impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line (representing 
visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to improve at a linear 
rate from conditions in the baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural 
visibility conditions in 2064). If the most impaired days RPG in 2028 
is above the URP (i.e., if visibility conditions are improving more 
slowly than the rate described by the URP), each state that contributes 
to visibility impairment in the Class I area must demonstrate, based on 
the FFA required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional 
emission reduction measures would be reasonable to include in its LTS. 
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) 
requires that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a 
Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP 
provide ``a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria 
used to determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated 
and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken 
into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-
term strategy.'' The 2019 Guidance provides suggestions about how such 
a ``robust demonstration'' might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance at 50-
51.
    The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also 
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on 
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control 
measures already required or anticipated before the FFA is conducted) 
is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and RHR's requirement that all 
states must conduct an FFA to determine what emission reduction 
measures constitute reasonable progress.\35\ The URP is a planning 
metric used to gauge the amount of progress made thus far and the 
amount left before reaching natural visibility conditions. However, the 
URP is not based on consideration of the four statutory factors and 
therefore cannot answer the question of whether the amount of progress 
being made in any particular planning period is ``reasonable 
progress.'' See 82 FR 3093, 3099-3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ In lieu of conducting an FFA, states may elect to show the 
source has existing effective controls for the particular pollutants 
under evaluation or that the source is shutting down by the end of 
the planning period (or close to it).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and 
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual 
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I 
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are 
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment 
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its 
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for 
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility 
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the 
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the 
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to 
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of 
all visibility monitoring data to EPA at least annually. Compliance 
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's 
participation in the IMPROVE monitoring network, which is used to 
measure visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class 
I areas covered by the visibility program. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) 
introductory text, (f)(6)(i) and (iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is 
used to determine the 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired and 20 
percent clearest sets of days every year at each Class I area and 
tracks visibility impairment over time.
    All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring 
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of 
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment 
in affected Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). Section 
51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that all states' SIPs provide for a 
statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area; the inventory must include emissions for the most recent 
year for which data are available and estimates of future projected 
emissions. States must also include commitments to update their 
inventories periodically. The inventories themselves do not need to be 
included as elements in the SIP and are not subject to EPA review as 
part of the Agency's evaluation of a SIP revision.\36\ All states' SIPs 
must also provide for any other elements, including reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to 
assess and report on visibility. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 
2019 Guidance, a state may note in its regional haze SIP that its 
compliance with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part 
51, subpart A, satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions 
inventory for the most recent year for which data are available. To 
satisfy the requirement to provide estimates of future projected 
emissions, a state may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were 
developed for use in establishing RPGs for its own and nearby Class I 
areas.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze 
SIPs'' in 2019 Guidance at 55.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional 
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a 
requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring 
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas 
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called 
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment'' \38\ or RAVI. Under 
this provision, if EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has 
advised a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess RAVI, 
the state must include in

[[Page 105515]]

its SIP revision for the second planning period an appropriate strategy 
for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ EPA's visibility protection regulations define ``reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility impairment that 
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small 
number of sources.'' See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward the 
RPGs

    Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision 
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through 
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress 
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report 
for the first planning period. The regional haze progress report 
requirement is designed to inform the public and EPA about a state's 
implementation of its existing LTS and whether such implementation is 
in fact resulting in the expected visibility improvement. See 81 FR 
26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016) (82 FR 3119, January 10, 2017). To this end, 
every state's SIP revision for the second planning period is required 
to describe the status of implementation of all measures included in 
the state's LTS, including BART and reasonable progress emission 
reduction measures from the first planning period, and the resulting 
emissions reductions. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
    A core component of the progress report requirements is an 
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest days and 
most impaired days. For second planning period progress reports, 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I areas within their borders to 
first determine current visibility conditions for each area on the most 
impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to 
calculate the difference between those current conditions and baseline 
(2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress made to 
date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also assess the 
changes in visibility impairment for the clearest days and most 
impaired days since they submitted their first planning period progress 
reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5). Since different 
states submitted their first planning period progress reports at 
different times, the starting point for this assessment will vary state 
by state.
    Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in 
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all 
sources and activities within the state over the period since they 
submitted their first planning period progress reports. See 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified by the 
type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes 
in emissions since the period addressed by the previous progress report 
and requires states' SIP revisions to include an assessment of any 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the 
state. This assessment must include an explanation of whether these 
changes in emissions were anticipated and whether they have limited or 
impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility 
relative to what the state projected based on its LTS for the first 
planning period.

G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager (FLM) Coordination

    CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a public 
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with 
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the state 
must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in 
the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement, 
the RHR also requires that states ``provide the [FLM] with an 
opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in 
the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission 
reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided 
by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-
term strategy.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs 120 
days prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will be 
deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the 
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a 
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include 
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility 
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the 
development and implementation of strategies to address such 
impairment. See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for EPA to evaluate 
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has 
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing 
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to EPA 
must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the 
FLMs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide 
procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs 
regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. See 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(4).

IV. EPA's Evaluation of Florida's Regional Haze Submissions for the 
Second Planning Period

    On October 8, 2021, June 14, 2024, and October 28, 2024, FDEP 
submitted revisions to the Florida SIP to address the State's regional 
haze obligations for the second planning period, which runs through 
2028, in accordance with CAA section 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 
51.308(f).\39\ The following sections contain EPA's evaluation of 
Florida's Haze Plan with respect to the requirements of the CAA and RHR 
for the second planning period of the regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed a limited disapproval of 
the Florida regional haze SIP since Florida had relied on 
requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule to satisfy certain 
regional haze requirements. See 76 FR 82219. However, EPA determined 
not to finalize the limited disapproval for Florida because the 
State had requested additional time to modify its SIP to address the 
change in applicability of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to 
Florida in the final rule published on August 8, 2011. See 76 FR 
48208. EPA then proposed a limited approval of Florida's first 
period regional haze plan submission on May 25, 2012. See 77 FR 
31240. Later, on August 29, 2013, EPA approved Florida's first 
period regional haze plan submitted to EPA on March 19, 2010, as 
amended on August 31, 2010, and September 17, 2012. See 78 FR 53250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida has three mandatory Class I areas within its borders: 
Everglades National Park (Everglades), Chassahowitzka National 
Wilderness Area (Chassahowitzka), and St. Marks National Wilderness 
Area (St. Marks).\40\ The following sections describe Florida's Haze 
Plan, including analyses conducted by VISTAS and Florida's 
determinations based on those analyses, Florida's assessment of 
progress made since the first planning period in reducing emissions of 
visibility impairing pollutants, and the visibility improvement 
progress at its Class I areas and nearby Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Bradwell Bay Wilderness Area is one of only two Class I 
areas in the country for which visibility is not considered an 
important value. As such, the RHR does not apply to Bradwell Bay 
Wilderness Area. See 44 FR 69122, (November 3, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Identification of Class I Areas

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each 
state in which any Class I area is located or ``the emissions from 
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
impairment of visibility'' in a Class I area to have a plan for making 
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The RHR 
implements this statutory requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which 
provides that each state's plan ``must

[[Page 105516]]

address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located 
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located 
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the 
State,'' and (f)(2), which requires each state's plan to include a LTS 
that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas. To develop a 
state's LTS, a state must first determine which Class I areas may be 
affected by its own emissions. For out-of-state Class I areas, states 
must assess their visibility impacts on a statewide basis, which is 
discussed in section IV.A.2 below, and on a source specific basis, 
which is discussed in IV.C.2 below.
    2. State Assessment: To address 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), Florida 
identified Class I areas affected by statewide emissions of the primary 
visibility impairing pollutants and then consulted states with Class I 
areas affected by Florida's statewide emissions. Specifically, FDEP 
presented the results of Particulate Matter Source Apportionment 
Technology (PSAT) \41\ modeling, which VISTAS conducted to estimate the 
projected impact of statewide SO2 and NOX 
emissions across all emissions sectors in 2028 on total light 
extinction for the 20 percent most impaired days in all Class I areas 
in the VISTAS modeling domain.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ PSAT is Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology, 
which is an option in the photochemical visibility impact modeling 
performed by VISTAS that is a methodology to track the fate of both 
primary and secondary PM. PSAT allows emissions to be tracked 
(``tagged'') for individual facilities as well as various 
combinations of sectors and geographic areas (e.g., by state). The 
PSAT results provide the modeled contribution of each of the tagged 
sources or groups of sources to the total visibility impacts.
    \42\ FDEP did not include directly emitted PM data in this 
analysis because the PSAT analyses performed by VISTAS tagged 
statewide emissions of SO2 and NOX and did not 
tag primary (directly emitted) direct PM emissions in the analysis 
after concluding that SO2 and NOX emissions, 
particularly from point sources, are projected to have the largest 
impact on visibility impairment in 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In table 10-1 on page 297 of Florida's 2021 Plan, Florida listed 
the top 10 Class I areas outside of the State that are impacted by 
Florida sources' emissions of SO2 and NOX, ranked 
by absolute impact in Mm-1. The top 10 areas impacted by 
Florida's statewide emissions of SO2 and NOX are 
located in the following six States: Alabama (Sipsey National 
Wilderness Area); Georgia (Cohutta National Wilderness Area (Cohutta), 
Okefenokee National Wilderness Area (Okefenokee), and Wolf Island 
National Wilderness Area (Wolf Island)); Louisiana (Breton National 
Wilderness Area (Breton)); North Carolina (Shining Rock National 
Wilderness Area and Swanquarter National Wilderness Area); North 
Carolina/Tennessee (Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Joyce 
Kilmer-Slickrock National Wilderness Area (Joyce Kilmer)); and South 
Carolina (Cape Romain National Wilderness Area (Cape Romain)).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The visibility impacts projected in 2028 to the top three 
Class I areas impacted by Florida's SO2 and 
NOX emissions (excluding the three Florida Class I areas) 
are: 14.2 percent at Okefenokee (Georgia); 8.8 percent at Wolf 
Island (Georgia); and 4.1 percent at Cape Romain (South Carolina).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida consulted with the VISTAS states (see section 10.1 and 
appendix F-1 of the 2021 Plan) and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) states (see section 10.3 and appendix F-4 of 
the 2021 Plan). Similarly, FDEP participated in multistate conference 
calls with the Central States Air Resource Agencies Association to 
discuss its statewide impacts to Class I areas, including Breton in 
Louisiana. In addition to these interstate consultations related to 
Florida's statewide visibility impacts to Class I areas, Florida 
consulted with Georgia on specific Florida sources impacting visibility 
at Georgia's Class I areas. FDEP documented consultations with these 
states in section 10 and appendix F of the 2021 Plan. Florida's 
interstate consultation is further discussed in section IV.C.2.e of 
this proposed rulemaking and section I.F of EPA's Technical Support 
Document (TSD).
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to find that Florida adequately 
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) regarding identification of its statewide 
visibility impacts to Class I areas outside of the State and consulting 
with states with Class I areas which may reasonably be anticipated to 
cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility due to Florida's 
emissions. EPA proposes to find that the State's approach of focusing 
on SO2 and NOX impacts from Florida on the basis 
that, for current visibility conditions evaluated for the 2014-2018 
period, ammonium sulfate is the dominant visibility impairing pollutant 
at most of the VISTAS Class I areas followed by organic carbon and 
ammonium nitrate (depending on the area), is reasonable.\44\ VISTAS 
focused on controllable emissions from point sources and thus initially 
considered impacts from sulfates and nitrates on regional haze at Class 
I areas affected by VISTAS states. EPA proposes to find that FDEP 
satisfied the part of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) related to the identification 
of Class I areas outside of Florida that may be affected by emissions 
from within the State and consultation with affected states because the 
State analyzed its statewide sulfate and nitrate contributions to total 
visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas in table 10-1 of 
the 2021 Plan; and the State completed consultation with VISTAS and 
MANE-VU states via the RPO processes, and, in some cases, on a state-
to-state basis and documented those consultations.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See figures 2-12 and 2-13 of the 2021 Plan for the VISTAS 
Class I areas. See also section IV.C.2.a of this document.
    \45\ See section IV.C.2.e of this document and section I.F of 
EPA's TSD for additional detail regarding consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the URP

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to 
determine the following for ``each mandatory Class I Federal area 
located within the State'': baseline visibility conditions for the 
clearest days and most impaired days, natural visibility conditions for 
the clearest days and most impaired days, progress to date for the 
clearest days and most impaired days, the differences between current 
visibility conditions and natural visibility conditions, and the URP. 
This section also provides the option for states to propose adjustments 
to the URP line for a Class I area to account for visibility impacts 
from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or the impacts 
from wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for certain, 
specified objectives. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
    2. State Assessment: In the 2021 Plan, Florida calculated the 
baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004) in table 2-3; current 
visibility conditions (2014-2018) in table 2-5; and natural visibility 
conditions in table 2-2 for the 20 percent most impaired and 20 percent 
clearest days for the State's Class I areas in deciviews, as shown in 
table 1, below. Florida also calculated the actual progress made toward 
natural visibility conditions to date since the baseline period 
(current minus baseline), and the additional progress needed to reach 
natural visibility conditions from current conditions (natural minus 
current), in deciviews, in table 2-6 (for the 20 percent most impaired 
days) and table 2-7 (for the 20 percent clearest days) as shown in 
table 2, below.

[[Page 105517]]

   Table 1--Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility Conditions in Florida's Class I Areas in Deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Baseline
                                Baseline       most       Current     Current most     Natural     Natural most
        Class I area            clearest     impaired     clearest    impaired 20%     clearest    impaired 20%
                                  20%          20%          20%                          20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chassahowitzka..............        15.60        24.52        12.41           17.41         6.00            9.03
Everglades..................        11.69        19.52        10.37           14.90         5.22            8.33
St. Marks...................        14.34        24.68        11.15           17.39         5.37            9.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Table 2--Actual Progress for Visibility Conditions in Florida's Class I Areas in Deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Current minus      Current minus      Natural minus      Natural minus
            Class I area                baseline for     baseline for most     current for     current for most
                                        clearest 20%       impaired 20%       clearest 20%       impaired 20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chassahowitzka......................             -3.19               -7.11             -6.41               -8.38
Everglades..........................             -1.32               -4.62             -5.15               -6.57
St. Marks...........................             -3.19               -7.29             -5.78               -8.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 of the 2021 Plan provide 
the URP figures on the 20 percent most impaired days for 
Chassahowitzka, Everglades, and St. Marks, respectively. The URPs were 
developed using EPA guidance and data collected from the IMPROVE 
monitoring network, which is used to measure visibility impairment 
caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the 
visibility program. All Florida Class I areas are projected to be below 
the 2028 URP values for the second planning period based on VISTAS' 
modeling. However, due to issues in the VISTAS model performance for 
Everglades, Florida relied on visibility modeling completed by EPA in 
2019 for this Class I area.\46\ EPA modeling tended to have better 
performance for Everglades due to the use of an expanded modeling 
domain, updated boundary conditions (including marine offshore 
emissions), and a more recent base year, allowing for more accurate 
2028 emissions and visibility projections. Thus, Florida is relying on 
EPA's regional haze modeling for Everglades visibility projections and 
RPG development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Memorandum from Richard A, Wayland, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors 
re: Availability of Modeling Data and Associated Technical Support 
Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality Modeling 
(September 19, 2019), available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/updated_2028_regional_haze_modeling-tsd-2019_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA is proposing to find that Florida's Haze 
Plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) because the State 
provides for its three Class I areas: baseline, current and natural 
visibility conditions for the 20 percent clearest days and most 
impaired days, progress to date for the 20 percent clearest days and 
most impaired days, the differences between the current visibility 
condition and natural visibility condition, and the URP for each Class 
I area in Florida. Further, FDEP provided a reasonable explanation for 
using EPA's modeling for 2028 for Everglades is appropriate in this 
instance as mentioned above.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See section 6.6, ``Model Performance for Everglades,'' on 
pp. 146-154 of Florida's 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. LTS for Regional Haze

    1. RHR Requirement: Each state having a Class I area within its 
borders or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must 
develop a LTS for making reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal. See CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the Background 
section of this document, reasonable progress is achieved when all 
states contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area are 
implementing the measures determined--through application of the four 
statutory factors to sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be 
necessary to make reasonable progress. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each 
state's LTS must include the enforceable emission limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
    All new (i.e., additional) measures that are the outcome of FFAs 
are necessary to make reasonable progress and must be in the LTS. If 
the outcome of an FFA and other measures necessary to make reasonable 
progress is that no new measures are reasonable for a source, that 
source's existing measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, 
unless the state can demonstrate that the source will continue to 
implement those measures and will not increase its emission rate. 
Existing measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must 
also be in the LTS. In developing its LTS, a state must also consider 
the five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its 
reasonable progress determinations, the state must describe the 
criteria used to determine which sources or group of sources were 
evaluated (i.e., subjected to FFA) for the second planning period and 
how the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the 
emission reduction measures for inclusion in the LTS. See 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of 
which they are members to select sources for FFA and to satisfy the 
documentation requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO has 
performed source selection and/or FFAs (or considered the five 
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states, 
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of 
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the 
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in 
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. See 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    States may also satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) 
to engage in interstate consultation with other states that have 
emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility 
impairment in a given Class I area under the auspices of intra- and 
inter-RPO engagement.
    The consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide 
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably 
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to 
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the 
emission reductions measures that are

[[Page 105518]]

necessary to make reasonable progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and 
(B) require states to consider the emission reduction measures 
identified by other states as necessary for reasonable progress and to 
include agreed upon measures in their SIPs, respectively. Section 
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what happens if states cannot agree on 
what measures are necessary to make reasonable progress.
    The documentation requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides 
that states may meet their obligations to document the technical bases 
on which they are relying to determine the emission reductions measures 
that are necessary to make reasonable progress through an RPO, as long 
as the process has been ``approved by all State participants.'' Section 
51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions information 
considered to determine the measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most 
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data 
to EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period for 
newly submitted data.
    2. State Assessment: To develop Florida's LTS, FDEP set criteria to 
identify sources to evaluate for potential controls outlined in section 
II.B, selected sources based on those criteria, considered the four CAA 
factors for the selected sources (or demonstrated the sources have 
existing effective controls as explained in IV.C.2.b. below), provided 
emissions limits and supporting conditions for incorporation into the 
SIP, and evaluated the five additional factors at 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv).
    a. Source Selection Criteria: With respect to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(i), Florida, through VISTAS, used a two-step source 
selection process: (1) Area of Influence (AoI) analysis,\48\ and (2) 
PSAT \49\ modeling for sources exceeding an AoI threshold. Florida 
considered the four factors (or demonstrated the sources have existing 
effective controls as explained in IV.C.2.b. below) for sources that 
exceeded both the AoI and PSAT thresholds. Both sulfates and nitrates 
were considered in the source selection process. To identify sources 
having the most impact on visibility at Class I areas for PSAT 
modeling, Florida used an AoI threshold of greater than or equal to 
five percent for sulfate and nitrate combined area for all sources 
within and outside of the State. Sources selected at the AoI screening 
step for PSAT modeling are listed in table 7-11 of the 2021 Plan. Of 
these 18 sources, 17 sources located within Florida exceeded the AoI 
threshold for any Class I area in the State: Cemex Miami Cement Plant, 
Duke Crystal River Power Plant (Duke-Crystal River), FPL Turkey Point, 
Georgia-Pacific--Foley Cellulose Perry Mill (Foley), Gulf Clean Energy 
Center--Crist Generating Plant, Homestead City Utilities, Jacksonville 
Electric Authority--Northside Generating Station (JEA Northside), 
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--New Wales (Mosaic-New Wales), Mosaic 
Fertilizer, LLC--Riverview (Mosaic-Riverview), Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--
Bartow (Mosaic-Bartow), Nutrien White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, 
Inc. (Nutrien), Rayonier Performance Fibers LLC, Tallahassee City 
Purdom Generating Station, Tampa Electric Company--Big Bend Power 
Station (TECO-Big Bend), Titan-Pennsuco, WestRock Fernandina Beach 
Paper Mill (WestRock-Fernandina), and WestRock Panama City Paper Mill 
(WestRock-Panama City).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The AoI represents the geographical area around a Class I 
area in which emissions sources located in the AoI have the 
potential to contribute to visibility impairment at that Class I 
area. Emissions data from sources in the AoI is then evaluated to 
determine which of those sources are most likely contributing to 
visibility impairment at that Class I area. VISTAS used AoI analysis 
for all point source facilities in the VISTAS modeling domain to 
determine the relative visibility impairment impacts at each Class I 
area associated with sulfate and nitrate. The results of the 
facility-level AoI analyses were then used to rank and prioritize 
facilities for further evaluation via PSAT.
    \49\ PSAT modeling is a type of photochemical modeling which 
quantifies individual facility visibility impacts to an area. See 
footnote 40. FDEP applied its PSAT threshold by facility. In the 
regional haze SIPs developed for the first round of planning, many 
VISTAS states used the AoI approach and a one percent threshold by 
unit. Florida followed a different approach using emissions (tons 
per year) divided by distance (kilometers) (Q/d) but showed that 
this approach screened in a similar number of units to the AoI 
approach, and therefore, had similar screening stringency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida, in coordination with the other VISTAS states, selected 
sources for further evaluation using a PSAT threshold of greater than 
or equal to one percent visibility impact for sulfate or nitrate. 
Sources both within and outside of Florida that were identified for an 
emissions control analysis are listed in tables 7-25 and 7-26 of the 
2021 Plan, and Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC-South Pierce (Mosaic-South 
Pierce) is identified in section 7.6.4.1 of the 2024 Supplement. Twelve 
sources were selected by FDEP for an emissions control analysis. In 
addition, FDEP identified two additional sources in Georgia and 
Kentucky that were requested by FDEP for further analysis as part of 
the interstate consultation process. The 12 sources in Florida are: 
Duke-Crystal River, Foley, JEA Northside, Lakeland CD McIntosh Jr. 
Power Plant (CD McIntosh),\50\ Mosaic-Bartow, Mosaic-New Wales, Mosaic-
South Pierce, Nutrien, Seminole Electric Cooperative Incorporated 
(Seminole), TECO-Big Bend, WestRock-Fernandina, and WestRock-Panama 
City.\51\ Because no sources exceeded the State's PSAT threshold for 
nitrates and because ammonium sulfate continues to be the dominant 
visibility impairing pollutant at Class I areas potentially impacted by 
Florida sources (as discussed in the following paragraphs), FDEP 
focused solely on evaluating potential SO2 controls to 
address regional haze in potentially affected Class I areas. FDEP 
allowed the selected facilities to either demonstrate that units 
emitting greater than five tons per year (tpy) of SO2 were 
already effectively controlled or complete an FFA for this pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The fossil fuel steam generating unit No. 3 (EU006) at CD 
McIntosh was permanently shut down in 2021. See appendices G-3 and 
G-5h of the 2021 Plan.
    \51\ In June 2022, the WestRock-Panama City facility announced 
its intention to permanently cease operations. See section 7.8.4 of 
the 2024 supplement. FDEP included documentation for closure of the 
WestRock-Panama City facility in its 2024 Supplement. In addition, 
on October 18, 2024, FDEP sent a site inspection report and other 
supporting documentation for the WestRock-Panama City closure as an 
addendum to the 2024 Supplement. The inspection report documents the 
permanent closure and inoperable status of the facility and notes 
that any project to restore the facility would be subjected to 
mandatory New Source Review and that multiple new source performance 
standards would inevitably apply. This additional documentation may 
be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP determined that during the 2014 to 2018 timeframe, Florida's 
Class I areas were impacted most heavily by sulfate. See figures 2-9 
through 2-11 of the 2021 Plan. In Florida's AoI analysis, Florida used 
extinction-weighted residence time plots to allow for a separate 
analysis of sulfates and nitrates. Figures 7-42, 7-43, and 7-44 of the 
2021 Plan contain the sulfate extinction weighted residence time for 
Chassahowitzka, St. Marks, and Everglades, respectively, for the 20 
percent most impaired days from 2011 to 2016. Figures 7-45, 7-46, and 
7-47 contain the nitrate extinction weighted residence time for 
Chassahowitzka, St. Marks, and Everglades, respectively, for the 20 
percent most impaired days from 2011 to 2016. The sulfate extinction 
weighted residence times are significantly higher (approximately ten 
times higher) than the nitrate extinction weighted residence times on 
the 20 percent most impaired days during this time period, 
demonstrating the importance of focusing on SO2 emission 
reductions.

[[Page 105519]]

    The Haze Plan shows the VISTAS modeled projections demonstrating 
that ammonium sulfate is expected to remain the dominant visibility 
impairing pollutant through 2028, by a factor of four or greater over 
ammonium nitrate at Class I areas in Florida.\52\ In section 7.4 of the 
2021 Plan, FDEP explains the VISTAS analyses relied upon to support the 
State's focus on SO2 control evaluations. Section 10.4.1 
provides the State's responses to FLM comments on the exclusion of NOx 
control evaluations from the FFAs.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See figures 2-9 through 2-12 of the 2021 Plan. Figures 2-9 
through 2-11 provide 2014-2018 speciated PM data for Florida's Class 
I areas showing that ammonium sulfate is the dominant visibility 
impairing pollutant. Figures 2-11 and 2-12 provide speciated PM data 
for 2014-2018 for the VISTAS Class I areas and neighboring areas on 
the 20 percent most impaired days and 20 percent clearest days, 
respectively.
    \53\ See section 2.5.2 (particularly figures 2-6 through 2-8 for 
2009-2013) and section 2.4.1 of the 2021 Plan related to ammonium 
nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in section 2.6 of the 2021 Plan, FDEP reviewed 
visibility monitoring data for the period 2014-2018 for Chassahowitzka, 
Everglades, and St. Marks. Figures 2-9 through 2-11 show the 
reconstructed light extinction for the 20 percent most impaired days at 
each Florida Class I areas, respectively. The data indicates that 
sulfates are the primary visibility impacting species in Florida's 
Class I areas during the 2014-2018 timeframe.
    Furthermore, figures 7-22 (Chassahowitzka), 7-23 (St. Marks), and 
7-24 (Everglades) in the 2021 Plan show that the majority of 2028 
predicted nitrate light extinction on the 20 percent most impaired days 
at Florida's Class I areas is not caused by NOX emissions 
from electric generating unit (EGU) and non-EGU point sources.\54\ At 
Chassahowitzka, St. Marks, and the Everglades, projected total sulfate 
extinction is greater than 10 Mm-1 and projected total 
nitrate extinction is less than five Mm-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Figures 7-20 and 7-21 provides the 2028 visibility 
impairment from sulfate and nitrate on the 20 percent most impaired 
days for all 18 Class I areas in VISTAS. The figures show the EGU 
and non-EGU contributions to total nitrate derived light extinction 
in 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section I.A of the TSD to this proposed rulemaking provides a 
summary of the State's source selection criteria, including the 
technical rationale for the State's focus on SO2 controls 
for the second planning period and the outcomes of the State's source 
selection process.
    b. Consideration of the Four CAA Factors:
    As discussed in section IV.C.2.b.ii (Existing, Effective Control 
Demonstrations) below, eight of the 12 selected facilities in Florida 
demonstrated that some or all of the selected units are effectively 
controlled for SO2. FDEP stated that there is a low 
likelihood that cost-effective technological advancements exist that 
could provide further reasonable emission reductions for these sources. 
For the remaining selected sources, FDEP fully considered the four CAA 
factors as discussed in section IV.C.2.b.i below.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ As mentioned above, two of the 12 selected facilities 
permanently shut down (CD McIntosh Unit 3 and WestRock-Panama City).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. FFAs: Florida considered each of the four CAA factors for Foley, 
JEA Northside (Unit 3),\56\ and WestRock-Fernandina and described how 
the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the 
measures for inclusion in the State's LTS. Florida is proposing 
selected permit conditions summarized below for incorporation into the 
SIP as measures necessary for reasonable progress for the second 
planning period. See section I.B of the TSD to this proposed rulemaking 
for additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ JEA Northside Unit 3 was selected for FFA and Units 1 and 2 
were shown to be effectively controlled for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Foley: Foley is a softwood Kraft Process Pulp Mill that 
manufactured bleached market pulps and dissolving cellulose pulps. FDEP 
requested that the facility complete an FFA for five units expected to 
emit more than five tpy of SO2 in 2028. FDEP evaluated 
emissions reductions measures for SO2 for the No. 1 Power 
Boiler; No. 1 Bark Boiler; and Nos. 2, 3, and 4 Recovery 
Furnaces.57 58
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ FDEP determined that an FFA was not needed for Bark Boiler 
No. 2 because annual SO2 emissions from this unit are 
significantly lower than five tpy, Florida's threshold for the 
second planning period for determining which units are subject to an 
FFA for any selected source.
    \58\ On January 19, 2024, FDEP published in the Florida 
Administrative Register a public notice of hearing for consideration 
of a proposed SIP revision, which included the FFA for Foley. The 
comment period for this proposed SIP revision closed on March 8, 
2024. However, in April 2024, the Foley facility announced its 
intent to permanently cease operations. FDEP provided documentation 
of the closure in their 2024 Supplement. See section 7.8.3. However, 
because Foley is in an ongoing process to dismantle the facility, 
FDEP was unable to provide documentation to EPA that the facility 
was inoperable. Thus, FDEP provided the FFA for Foley that was 
originally part of the January 19, 2024, public engagement plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No. 1 Power Boiler: The No. 1 Power Boiler serves as the secondary 
control device for low volume, high concentration (LVHC) non-
condensable gas (NCG) and fires natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, tall oil, 
and on-specification used oil. When NCGs are routed to the No. 1 Power 
Boiler, a pre-scrubber is used to assist with reduction of total 
reduced sulfur (TRS) which in turn limits SO2 production. 
The Mill identified a wet scrubber and a dry sorbent injection (DSI) 
system as available and feasible controls for this unit. The cost 
evaluation for the wet scrubber resulted in an estimated cost 
effectiveness of $13,547/ton to reduce actual SO2 emissions 
by approximately 80 tpy. FDEP determined that installation of a wet 
scrubber on No. 1 Power Boiler is not cost effective. As for the DSI 
system, the cost evaluation resulted in an estimated cost-effectiveness 
value of $21,727/ton to reduce actual SO2 emissions by 
approximately 73 tpy, which FDEP considered not cost effective. FDEP, 
however, determined that existing low-sulfur fuel restrictions on this 
unit were necessary for reasonable progress as follows: fire only 
natural gas except during specified times when natural gas is 
unavailable or there is a physical problem at the mill that prevents 
the firing of natural gas, in which case the unit may fire liquid 
fuels; tall oil is prohibited; No. 6 fuel oil purchases must meet a 
sulfur content limit of no more than 1.02 percent; and the unit is only 
permitted to burn LVHC NCG when the No. 1 Bark Boiler is unavailable or 
when necessary for compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, such as 
for monitoring for detectable leaks for the closed vent system. Florida 
has identified permit conditions for these restrictions for 
incorporation into the SIP.
    Regarding the other CAA factors, there is no time necessary to 
comply with the low-sulfur fuel option, and the use of low sulfur fuel 
did not result in non-air environmental impacts. For the wet scrubber 
and DSI options, FDEP states that it may take up to four years to 
secure funding, make the required technical changes, and perform 
testing and monitoring to ensure proper system operation for the 
installation of wet scrubbers and DSI systems. Energy and non-air 
environmental impacts include additional electrical costs associated 
with DSI and scrubber operation, and additional fresh water and 
wastewater disposal use for the wet scrubber. Additionally, the No. 1 
Power Boiler is assumed to have 30 years or more of remaining useful 
life, and an interest rate of 3.25 was used when considering the 
annualized costs of controls.
    No. 1 Bark Boiler: The No. 1 Bark Boiler serves as the primary 
control device for LVHC NCGs and provides the Mill with 200,000 pounds 
per hour (lbs/hr) (24-hour block average basis) of steam. The No. 1 
Bark Boiler fires natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, tall oil, and on-
specification used oil and is equipped with a cyclone collector and

[[Page 105520]]

a wet venturi scrubber. Currently, permit conditions for No. 1 Bark 
Boiler require the wet venturi scrubber to meet pH and flow rate 
restrictions only when the TRS pre-scrubber is not operational. For the 
FFA, FDEP evaluated one control option which consists of running the 
existing wet venturi scrubber whenever NCGs or oil are combusted in the 
No. 1 Bark Boiler, maintaining a minimum pH of 8 (three-hour block 
average), and flow rate of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (three-hour 
block average), rather than only when the TRS pre-scrubber is 
unavailable. The increase in the operation of the wet scrubber requires 
an increase in the amount of time caustic is added to the wet scrubber 
which requires the addition of an antiscalant to minimize fouling and 
scaling due to caustic buildup in the boiler. FDEP evaluated these 
operational changes as technically feasible, and the cost evaluation 
resulted in an estimated annualized cost effectiveness of $2,627/ton to 
remove approximately 96 tpy of SO2 emissions. FDEP 
determined this control to be cost effective. Implementing the 
increased operation of the wet scrubber requires adding additional 
caustic and scalant to the scrubber control system, which could be done 
with within 12 months with no negative non-air environmental impacts. 
The No. 1 Bark Boiler is assumed to have 30 years or more of remaining 
useful life, and an interest rate of 3.25 percent was used when 
considering the annualized costs of controls. Florida has identified 
permit conditions for these requirements for incorporation into the 
SIP.
    FDEP also determined that certain existing measures are necessary 
for reasonable progress and proposed for incorporation into the SIP low 
sulfur fuel restrictions that are similar to the restrictions proposed 
for No. 1 Power, except the No. 1 Bark Boiler is permitted to burn wood 
in addition to natural gas as the primary fuel type. FDEP is proposing 
permit conditions reflecting these requirements for incorporation into 
the SIP.
    Nos 2, 3, and 4 Recovery Furnaces: The three recovery furnaces are 
low-odor, non-direct contact evaporator units that burn the organic 
material present in black liquor (a byproduct in the Kraft Mill 
process). The furnaces fire natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, No. 2 fuel 
oil, tall oil, ultra-low sulfur diesel, on-specification used oil, and 
methanol (methanol is only fired in select furnaces). Foley considered 
adding several common flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems to the 
recovery furnaces, including spray dryer absorbers (SDA), DSI, and 
conventional wet scrubbers. Considering the antiquated design of the 
furnaces, FDEP found the addition of a wet scrubber to be the only 
feasible control technology.
    FDEP identified a wet scrubber as a potential control option for 
the recovery furnaces, but noted that it is not aware of the 
installation of a wet scrubber on any recovery furnaces across the 
country. The cost effectiveness to add a wet scrubber was estimated at 
values of: $7,779/ton to reduce SO2 by approximately 592 
tons annually for Recovery Furnace No. 2; $5,197/ton to reduce 
SO2 by approximately 1,050 tons annually for Recovery 
Furnace No. 3; and $6,587/ton to reduce SO2 by approximately 
831 tons annually for Recovery Furnace No. 4. FDEP determined that 
adding a wet scrubber was not cost effective. FDEP estimated that it 
would take up to four years to install new controls at the recovery 
furnaces. Typical energy and non-air quality impacts of compliance 
include caustic and sulfuric acid costs, additional electrical costs 
associated with scrubber operation, additional fresh water for scrubber 
needs and wastewater disposal. It is assumed that the recovery furnaces 
have at least 30 years of remaining useful life, and an interest rate 
of 3.5 percent was used when considering the annualized costs of 
controls.
    FDEP determined that the following existing measures at the 
recovery furnaces are necessary for reasonable progress: burn black 
liquor as the primary fuel; natural gas and liquid fuels may supplement 
recovery operations; a maximum sulfur content of 1.02 percent for 
purchased No. 6 fuel oil; and a SO2 emissions cap of 3,200 
tons per consecutive 12 operating months as measured by a continuous 
emissions monitoring system (CEMS).
    State Conclusions: Regarding the No. 1 Power Boiler, FDEP 
determined that there were no cost-effective emission reductions for 
the No. 1 Power Boiler and determined that the existing measures at the 
No. 1 Power Boiler are necessary for reasonable progress. Thus, FDEP 
proposed low-sulfur fuel restrictions for incorporation into the SIP 
for the No. 1 Power Boiler as described above.
    Regarding the No. 1 Bark Boiler, FDEP determined that continuously 
running the wet venturi scrubber with added caustic and scalant to 
maintain a minimum pH of 8 is cost-effective and, therefore, the State 
has determined that these controls are necessary for reasonable 
progress. FDEP also determined that certain existing low sulfur fuel 
restrictions are necessary for reasonable progress and proposed low 
sulfur fuel restrictions that are similar to the restrictions proposed 
for the No. 1 Power Boiler.
    Regarding the Nos. 2, 3, and 4 Recovery Furnaces, after conducting 
a site visit at Foley and discussing the physical constraints and 
reviewing the costs, FDEP determined that installation of a wet 
scrubber located after the electro-static precipitator (ESP) is not 
cost-effective and, therefore, the existing measures described above 
for the Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Recovery Furnaces are necessary for reasonable 
progress.
    FDEP identified permit conditions reflecting these new and existing 
SO2 measures in the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the 
SIP'' section of the Second 2024 Supplement for incorporation into the 
regulatory portion of the Florida SIP.
    (b) JEA Northside (Unit 3): JEA Northside is a power plant located 
in north Jacksonville. The main sources of SO2 emissions at 
JEA Northside are Nos. 1 and 2 (EU 026 and EU 027) circulating 
fluidized-bed (CFB) Boilers and the No. 3 (EU 003) Boiler. FDEP 
conducted an FFA for JEA Northside's No. 3 Boiler. For the Nos. 1 and 2 
CFB Boilers, Florida relied on an existing effective controls 
demonstration, as discussed below in section IV.C.2.b.ii.
    The No. 3 Boiler is a natural gas-fired electric utility steam 
generating unit as defined in 40 CFR 63.10042 that fires natural gas 
and limited amounts of No. 6 fuel oil. The FFA for the No. 3 Boiler 
identified the following available controls: using lower sulfur No. 6 
fuel oil (from 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent), using ultra-low sulfur No. 
2 fuel oil, or installing a wet FGD system. The cost effectiveness 
values for each control option are as follows: switching to a lower 
sulfur No. 6 fuel oil is $3,053/ton of SO2 removed, reducing 
emissions by 49.9 tpy; switching to No. 2 fuel oil is $7,334/ton of 
SO2 removed, reducing emissions by 122.81 tpy; and 
installing a wet FGD system is $177,856/ton of SO2 
removed.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ FDEP provided these cost effectiveness values because FDEP 
contends the costs provided by JEA were not justified adequately or 
were inconsistent with EPA's ``Air Pollution Control Cost Manual'' 
(Cost Manual) in the cost analysis. In all calculations, JEA used a 
seven percent interest rate instead of 3.25 percent (the current 
bank prime interest rate), used a 20-year lifetime instead of a more 
conservative 30-year lifetime, and included property taxes, 
insurance, and administration costs in the direct operating costs, 
which FDEP contends were not justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the other CAA factors, FDEP estimated that it would take 
nine months to one year to complete a switch to No. 2 or No. 6 fuel oil 
because a boiler outage of approximately two to

[[Page 105521]]

three months would be necessary to perform the new burner installation, 
and the State found no non-air environmental impacts from a switch. 
FDEP estimates installing a wet FGD system would take 36 months based 
on EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) estimates and the need for 
engineering design, equipment procurement, and installation, and 
testing. Regarding energy and non-air environmental impacts of the wet 
FGD, FDEP states that there are energy penalties due to the pressure 
drop through the absorbers and the energy usage by auxiliary systems 
and estimates that the total energy impacts would be about 30,000 
megawatt-hours for the maximum possible operation of Unit 3 currently 
authorized. Operation of wet FGD will also require the delivery, 
handling, and storage of limestone; the handling and disposal of FGD 
by-product (i.e., gypsum); and the use of process water. FDEP 
determined the remaining useful life factor for each control option to 
be 30 years and used a 3.25 percent interest rate when considering the 
annualized costs of controls.
    State Conclusions: Regarding JEA Northside Unit 3, FDEP determined 
that switching to No. 2 fuel oil and installing a wet FGD system are 
not cost effective, and therefore, are not necessary for reasonable 
progress. FDEP determined that switching to a lower sulfur No. 6 fuel 
oil is cost effective, and selected it as a measure necessary for 
reasonable progress for JEA Northside Unit 3.
    FDEP identified permit conditions reflecting this new 
SO2 measure in the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the 
SIP'' section of the 2021 Plan for incorporation into the regulatory 
portion of the Florida SIP.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See p. 13 of 34 of the ``Materials to be Incorporated into 
the SIP'' section to the administrative file of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) WestRock-Fernandina: WestRock-Fernandina is a fully integrated 
Kraft linerboard mill that produces linerboard from wood pulp and pulp 
derived from recycled corrugated containers. The Mill conducted 
projects totaling $15.9 million in capital costs in 2016 and 2017 to 
reduce both actual and allowable SO2 emissions so that 
modeled allowable emissions would demonstrate compliance with the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS. Table 7-31 in the 2021 Plan shows the decrease in 
emissions levels that have occurred since the 2016-2017 timeframe. The 
last line in table 7-31 contains the updated, projected emissions from 
this facility. The largest SO2 sources at the Mill are the 
No. 5 and No. 7 Power Boilers and the No. 4 and No. 5 Recovery Boilers.
    The No. 5 Power Boiler burns carbonaceous fuel such as biomass, 
natural gas, ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), or No. 2 fuel oil. 
Currently, this unit is prohibited from using No. 6 fuel oil or being 
used as a backup NCG control device unless otherwise approved by FDEP's 
Division of Air Resource Management. Additionally, an engineering 
analysis must be submitted providing reasonable assurance that the 
boiler can comply with SO2 emissions standards of 15.0 lb/
hour based on a 3-hour block average, as determined by data collected 
from a CEMS, during all periods of operation except when operating as a 
backup control device firing NCGs. The FFA for the No. 5 Power Boiler 
identified installation of a wet scrubber, installation of a wet 
scrubber with a stack liner, or installation of a DSI system as 
potential additional controls. The cost effectiveness values of these 
additional controls are as follows: installing a wet scrubber is 
$285,615/ton of SO2 removed; installing a wet scrubber with 
stack liner is $298,499/ton of SO2 removed; and installing 
DSI is $277,093/ton of SO2 removed. According to the FFA, it 
would take at least four years to install a wet scrubber or DSI system, 
and there are energy and non-air environmental impacts that would 
result from installing these controls, such as an increase in water and 
electricity usage and wastewater generation. The No. 5 Power Boiler is 
assumed to have a remaining useful life of 20 years or more; however, 
FDEP conservatively used a lifetime of 30 years to annualize costs and 
used a 3.25 percent interest rate when considering the annualized costs 
of controls. FDEP determined that these controls are not cost 
effective.
    The No. 7 Power Boiler serves as a backup NCG control device and 
fires coal, oil, or natural gas. The FFA for the No. 7 Power Boiler 
identified reducing coal usage to 125 tons per day (tpd), installing a 
wet scrubber after the existing ESP, installing a DSI with an existing 
ESP, installing SDA with new fabric filter, or removing all coal firing 
as potentially available controls. The cost effectiveness values of 
these controls are as follows: reducing coal usage is a cost savings of 
$1,868/ton of SO2 removed; installing a wet scrubber is 
$5,641/ton of SO2 removed, reducing emissions by 1,222 tpy; 
installing a wet scrubber with stack liner is $6,028/ton of 
SO2 removed, reducing emissions by 1,222 tpy; installing DSI 
is $8,776/ton of SO2 removed, reducing emissions by 748 tpy; 
installing an SDA is $16,398/ton of SO2 removed, reducing 
emissions by 1,184 tpy; and removing all coal firing is $7,374/ton of 
SO2 removed, reducing emissions by 1,171 tpy. WestRock-
Fernandina indicated they would need until 2024 to fully implement the 
coal reduction option but could begin limiting coal usage as early as 
2022, because the Mill is contractually obligated to purchase a set 
amount of coal through 2021. There were no energy or non-air quality 
environmental impacts associated with the reduction of coal usage. The 
installation of a wet scrubber would increase water and electricity 
usage and wastewater generation. The installation of a DSI system or an 
SDA system would increase solid waste and electricity usage. The No. 7 
Power Boiler fly ash is currently used in cement manufacturing but 
would have to be landfilled if contaminated with sorbent. The No. 7 
Power Boiler has approximately 20 years or more of useful life 
remaining; however, FDEP conservatively used a useful life of 30 years 
to annualize the costs. FDEP used a 3.25 percent interest rate, a 98 
percent control efficiency for FGD, a 60 percent control efficiency for 
DSI, a 95 percent control efficiency for SDA, and a 97 percent control 
efficiency for removing all coal in the calculations for No. 7 Power 
Boiler.
    The No. 4 Recovery Boiler fires black liquor solids or No. 2 fuel 
oil and uses natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil for startup. No. 5 Recovery 
Boiler fires black liquor solids or No. 6 fuel oil and burns natural 
gas or No. 2 fuel oil for startup only. Currently, the SO2 
emissions from Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers recovery boilers shall not 
exceed 150.0 lb/hour based on a 3-hour block average as determined by 
data collected from a certified CEMS or other methods approved by the 
Division of Air Resource Management. Alternatively, Nos. 4 and 5 
Recovery Boilers may comply with the combined SO2 emissions 
cap which shall not exceed 300.0 lb/hour based on a 3-hour block 
average as determined by data collected from a certified CEMS. The FFA 
for the Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers identified the installation of 
wet scrubber as a potential additional control for each recovery 
boiler. FDEP determined that the cost effectiveness for the wet 
scrubber is $282,375/ton of SO2 removed for the No. 4 
Recovery Boiler and $169,425/ton of SO2 removed for the No. 
5 Recovery Boiler.\61\ FDEP

[[Page 105522]]

determined that WestRock-Fernandina would need a minimum of four years 
to install a wet scrubber and concluded that there are energy and non-
air environmental impacts associated with the installation of a wet 
scrubber, including increased water and electricity usage and 
wastewater generation. The Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers are assumed to 
have 20 years of remaining useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ FDEP provided these cost effectiveness values because it 
contends that the costs provided by Westrock were not justified 
adequately or were inconsistent with the Cost Manual in the cost 
analysis provided by WestRock-Fernandina. WestRock used a 4.75% 
interest rate instead of 3.25% (the current bank prime interest 
rate), used a 15-year lifetime for equipment, and included property 
taxes without sufficient justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State Conclusions: For WestRock-Fernandina's No. 7 Power Boiler, 
FDEP determined that removing all coal-firing or installing a wet 
scrubber, DSI, or SDA are not cost effective, and are therefore not 
necessary for reasonable progress. For the No. 7 Power Boiler, FDEP 
determined that reducing coal usage to 125 tpd is cost effective and is 
a measure that is necessary for reasonable progress.\62\ Thus, FDEP 
identified the permit conditions reflecting this new SO2 
measure for WestRock-Fernandina's No. 7 Power Boiler in the ``Materials 
to be Incorporated into the SIP'' sections \63\ of the 2021 Plan and 
appendix A-1 of the 2024 Supplement for incorporation into the 
regulatory portion of the Florida SIP. These conditions may be found in 
permit number 0890003-072-AC of the 2021 Plan and 0890003-074-AC and of 
the 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ FDEP is also proposing for incorporation into the SIP an 
interim coal usage restriction of 250 tpd. The 250 tpd coal usage 
limitation became effective on January 1, 2022, and was included in 
the 2021 Plan. It was intended as an interim measure that would 
apply until the facility could meet the 125 tpd usage restriction, 
which became effective on April 24, 2024. The facility is now 
subject to the more restrictive 125 tpd coal cap.
    \63\ See pp. 15-16 of the administrative file of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For WestRock-Fernandina's No. 5 Power Boiler, FDEP determined that 
neither the installation of a wet scrubber--with or without the stack 
liner--nor the installation of a DSI system were cost effective. 
Likewise, FDEP determined that installation of wet scrubber for Nos. 4 
and 5 Recovery Boilers was not cost effective. Therefore, FDEP 
determined that existing measures at the No. 5 Power Boiler and the 
Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers are necessary for reasonable progress. 
These existing measures, contained in permit number 0890003-046-AC, 
were already incorporated into the SIP through the Nassau County 
Florida SO2 Attainment Plan SIP revision approved by EPA on 
July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30749).\64\ A list of the specific conditions 
included for regional haze informational purposes may be found in the 
``Materials Submitted for Informational Purposes Only'' section, in 
appendix A-6 of the 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ According to section 7.8.2 of the 2021 Plan, WestRock-
Fernandina conducted projects totaling $15.9 million in capital 
costs in 2016 and 2017 to reduce both actual and allowable 
SO2 emissions so that modeled allowable emissions would 
demonstrate compliance with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. With 
these projects, the SO2 emission limit for the No. 5 
Power Boiler was reduced from 550 pounds per hour (lb/hr) to 15 lb/
hr. In 2020, the facility increased the black liquor solids content, 
which helps stabilize operation of the recovery boilers, thus, 
allowing for improved SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Existing, Effective Control Demonstrations: As described in 
section 7.6.4.1 of the 2021 Plan, FDEP proposed existing SO2 
measures as necessary for reasonable progress for incorporation into 
the Florida SIP for the affected units at the following eight 
facilities: Duke-Crystal River, JEA Northside, Mosaic-Bartow, Mosaic-
New Wales, Mosaic-South Pierce, Nutrien, Seminole, and TECO-Big Bend. 
FDEP contends that these sources are effectively controlled and are 
unlikely to have additional controls available for reasonable progress.
    Regarding Duke-Crystal River, Florida is proposing for adoption 
into the SIP permit conditions that require compliance with a limit of 
0.20 pound per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) of 
SO2 for the fossil fuel steam generating Unit 4 and Unit 5 
in lieu of performing a detailed FFA for these units. This emission 
limit is the alternative emission limit currently applicable to Duke-
Crystal River under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) 
rule.\65\ Including this emission limit in the SIP would also have the 
effect of removing the hydrogen chloride MATS compliance option for 
Duke-Crystal River. Florida concluded that these units are effectively 
controlled for SO2 emissions and that additional reasonable 
controls are unlikely to be found. Therefore, Florida is proposing for 
adoption into the SIP permit conditions for the 0.20 lb/MMBtu 
SO2 emission limitation and additional permit conditions 
that allow the citrus combined cycle station Units 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B 
to combust only pipeline natural gas.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The MATS rule is located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU. 
The MATS rule provides the 0.20 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit as an 
alternative to meeting an emission limit for hydrogen chloride.
    \66\ The permits are located in appendix G-3a1-2 of the 2021 
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding JEA Northside, Florida proposed for adoption into the SIP 
permit conditions for Units 1 and 2 that include an SO2 
limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, and the MATS-based SO2 emission 
limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu.\67\ Florida is proposing both the 
SO2 limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu and the SO2 emission 
limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu as reflecting effective controls for JEA 
Northside Units 1 and 2 because the SO2 emission limit of 
0.15 lb/MMBtu had exemptions during period of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction. The MATS limit applies continuously and has work practice 
standards which apply during startup and shutdown. Florida concluded 
that this unit is effectively controlled for SO2 emissions 
and that additional reasonable controls are unlikely to be found. 
Therefore, Florida is proposing for incorporation into the SIP permit 
conditions for the 0.20 lb/MMBtu emission limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The permits are located in appendix G-3c1-2 of the 2021 
Plan and appendix A-2 of the 2024 Supplement. See section 7.6.4.1 
and appendix A-2 of the 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Mosaic-Bartow, Florida reviewed existing SO2 
measures at three sulfuric acid plants (SAPs) at the facility, Nos. 4 
through 6. This facility reduced SO2 emissions to bring the 
Hillsborough-Polk nonattainment area into attainment for the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS, including upgrades to the catalyst beds. The 
SO2 generated in these systems is catalytically oxidized to 
sulfur trioxide (SO3) over the catalyst beds at a rate of 
99.7 percent or higher. The facility is required to comply with a 
three-unit cap of 1,100 pounds/hour on a 24-hour block average as 
determined by continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). Each SAP at 
the facility is required to meet a limit of four pounds (lbs) 
SO2 per ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid produced. Florida 
states that this limit is consistent with the SO2 best 
available control technology (BACT) determinations for sulfur burning, 
double-absorption sulfuric acid plants with cesium-promoted catalysts 
at a range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs per ton in EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER 
Clearinghouse (RBLC) database.\68\ Florida concluded that these units 
are effectively controlled for SO2 emissions and that 
additional reasonable controls are unlikely to be found. These 
SO2 limits are already incorporated into Florida's SIP.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The RBLC is located at: www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information.
    \69\ See 85 FR 9666 (February 20, 2020); 40 CFR 52.520(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Mosaic-New Wales, Florida reviewed existing 
SO2 measures at five SAPs at the facility, Nos. 1 through 5. 
This facility also reduced SO2 emissions to bring the 
Hillsborough-Polk nonattainment area into attainment for the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS. The facility was required to comply with a five-
unit SO2

[[Page 105523]]

emissions cap of 1,090 lbs per hour on a 24-hour block average as 
determined by CEMS. SAP Nos. 1-3 are each required to meet an 
SO2 limit of 3.5 lbs per ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid 
produced on a 24-hr rolling average and four lbs per ton on a three-
hour rolling average. SAPs 4 and 5 are each required to meet a limit of 
four lbs per ton of sulfuric acid produced. Florida affirms that this 
limit is consistent with the SO2 BACT determinations for 
sulfur burning, double-absorption sulfuric acid plants with cesium-
promoted catalysts which appear in a range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs per ton of 
sulfuric acid produced in EPA's RBLC database. Florida concluded that 
these units are effectively controlled for SO2, and 
additional reasonable controls are unlikely to be found. These 
SO2 limits are already incorporated into Florida's SIP.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Mosaic-South Pierce, FDEP requested that the facility 
evaluate whether any additional measures were available to reduce 
SO2.\71\ Specifically, FDEP requested that Mosaic-South 
Pierce complete an FFA for SAPs Nos. 10 and 11 or demonstrate that 
those units were already effectively controlled for SO2. 
Sulfuric Acid Plants Nos. 10 and 11 are double absorption sulfuric acid 
systems equipped with two absorption towers in series to react 
SO3 with water to produce sulfuric acid. The SO2 
generated in a double absorption system's sulfur furnace is 
catalytically oxidized to SO3 over catalyst beds at a very 
high rate (99.7 percent or greater), which results in relatively low 
SO2 emissions as compared to a single absorption system. The 
second bed uses a cesium-promoted catalyst, which increases the overall 
SO2-to-SO3 conversion rate. FDEP determined that 
the SAPs Nos. 10 and 11 at Mosaic-South Pierce are effectively 
controlled for SO2 based on a review of EPA's RBLC database 
which identified the combination of dual absorption design and cesium-
promoted catalysts as BACT for sulfur-burning, non-single absorption 
column sulfuric acid plants and are therefore unlikely to have 
additional SO2 controls identified as part of an FFA. 
Florida has identified permit conditions for incorporation into the SIP 
that prohibit combined SO2 emissions from SAPs 10 and 11 
from exceeding 750 lbs SO2 per hour on a 24-hour block 
average as determined by CEMS.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ On February 1, 2023, the FDEP requested that Mosaic 
evaluate whether any additional measures were available to reduce 
SO2 emission from the Mosaic-South Pierce facility. See 
section 7.6.4.1 of the 2024 Supplement.
    \72\ The permit is located in appendix A-5 of the 2024 
Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Nutrien, this facility has recently completed significant 
work to reduce SO2 emissions to achieve SO2 
limits imposed by a consent decree entered on February 26, 2015.\73\ As 
part of the consent decree, Nutrien was required to reduce 
SO2 emissions and meet more stringent SO2 
emission limits at SAPs C, D, E, and F. Nutrien elected to permanently 
shut down SAPs C and D in 2014, reducing SO2 emissions from 
these SAPs to zero. On March 31, 2017, FDEP issued permit No. 0470002-
107-AC to Nutrien to complete upgrades on SAP E and SAP F, which 
included changing out and augmenting the converter catalyst in the 
SAPs, allowing them to meet new SO2 emission limits of 2.6 
lbs per ton on a three-hour rolling average (excluding startups and 
shutdowns) and 2.3 lbs per ton limit on a 365-day rolling average 
(including startups and shutdowns), as required by the consent decree. 
Nutrien was required to comply with these limits on January 1, 2018, 
for SAP F and January 1, 2020, for SAP E. Additionally, on January 1, 
2023, an 840 lbs/hour SO2 limit on a 24-hour block averaging 
period was applied to the combined emissions from SAP E and F.\74\ 
Florida states that these limits are consistent with recent BACT 
determinations made for similar double-absorption, sulfur-burning SAPs. 
Florida concluded that this unit is effectively controlled for 
SO2 emissions and that additional reasonable controls are 
unlikely to be found. Florida did not identify the permit conditions 
from Permit No. 0470002-132-AC, issued on September 22, 2022, for 
incorporation into the SIP because they have already been incorporated 
through Florida's Supplemental SSM SIP as approved by EPA on August 4, 
2023 (88 FR 51702).\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The consent decree entered on February 26, 2015, is located 
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. This consent decree 
terminated on April 3, 2023.
    \74\ See section 7.6.4.1 of the 2024 Supplement.
    \75\ Permit No. 0470002-132-AC, issued on September 22, 2022, to 
Nutrien is located in appendix A-4 of the 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding TECO-Big Bend, this facility has accepted the MATS 
SO2 limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for fossil fuel steam generators 
No. 3 (EU003) \76\ and No. 4 (EU004). This emission limit is the 
alternative emission limit currently applicable to TECO-Big Bend under 
the MATS rule. Including this emission limit in the SIP would also have 
the effect of removing the hydrogen chloride MATS compliance option for 
TECO-Big Bend. Florida concluded that this unit is effectively 
controlled for SO2 emissions and that additional reasonable 
controls are unlikely to be found. Therefore, Florida identified permit 
conditions with these SO2 limits for Unit 4 at TECO-Big Bend 
for incorporation into the Florida SIP.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Since submission of the 2021 Plan, Unit 3 at TECO-Big Bend 
retired on April 26, 2023. The Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) 
Acid Rain Retired Unit Exemption Form is included in the docket for 
this proposed rulemaking. For additional information regarding the 
shutdown and demolition of Unit 3, see the May 16, 2024 news release 
from TECO titled ``Tampa Electric has Demolished Old Chimneys at Big 
Bend Power Plant'', available at: https://www.tampaelectric.com/
mediacenter/2024/Tampa-Electric-has-Demolished-Old-Chimneys-at-Big-
Bend-Power-Plant/
#:~:text=The%20skyline%20of%20Apollo%20Beach,new%20view%20is%20Dramat
ically%20different.%E2%80%9D.
    \77\ The permits are located in appendix G-3 of the 2021 Plan 
and the permit conditions proposed for adoption into the SIP are 
listed under the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' 
section in filename ``Final SIP 2021-01 Regional Haze.pdf'' included 
with the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Seminole, this facility accepted the MATS SO2 
limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for the steam electric generator No. 1 (EU001) 
and No. 2 (EU002) in the same manner as discussed with TECO-Big Bend in 
the preceding paragraph. Florida concluded that this unit is 
effectively controlled for SO2 emissions and that additional 
reasonable controls are unlikely to be found. Therefore, Florida 
identified permit conditions with these SO2 limits for 
incorporation into the Florida SIP.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ The permits are located in appendix G-3h of the 2021 Plan 
and the permit conditions proposed for adoption into the SIP are 
listed under the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' 
section in filename ``Final SIP 2021-01 Regional Haze.pdf'' included 
with the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section I.B of the TSD to this proposed rulemaking provides a more 
detailed summary of the State's assessment of Florida's FFAs and 
existing effective controls, and the associated emissions control 
measures proposed for incorporation into the Florida SIP.
    c. Documentation of Technical Basis: With respect to emissions 
information documentation pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), section 
4 of the 2021 Plan explains the State's use of emissions inventories to 
develop the plan with additional documentation provided in appendix B. 
Florida, through VISTAS, developed a 2011 statewide base year emissions 
inventory which was used to project emissions out to 2028, the end of 
the second planning period.\79\ FDEP also evaluated emissions data from 
2017, the year of the most recent triennial emissions data available

[[Page 105524]]

at the time of the development of the 2021 Plan. Statewide emissions 
from the 2014 and 2017 National Emissions Inventories (NEIs) are 
provided in tables 13-11, 13-12, and 13-13 of the 2021 Plan for 
PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Table 4-1 provides a summary of the 2011 baseline emissions 
inventory for Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to cost and engineering information documentation 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), section 7.8 of the Haze Plan 
details the State's analysis of the FFAs for Foley, JEA Northside, and 
WestRock-Fernandina located in appendix G which evaluated the four 
factors, including the cost of compliance factor, and provided detailed 
cost calculations for potential new control measures assessed as part 
of the engineering analyses. In addition, section 7.6.4.1 of the 2021 
Plan describes the State's analysis of seven sources with existing, 
effective SO2 measures: Duke-Crystal River, JEA Northside 
(Units 1 and 2), Mosaic-Bartow, Mosaic-New Wales, Nutrien, Seminole, 
and TECO-Big Bend \80\ and the 2024 Supplement summarizes existing, 
effective SO2 measures at Mosaic-South Pierce in section 
7.6.4.1 on pages 5-6 of the narrative and in appendix B-2 of the 2024 
Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ FDEP also included the shutdown of Unit 3 of CD McIntosh in 
section 7.6.4.1, ``Effective Controls Analyses,'' of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to monitoring information documentation pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), the State assessed baseline (2000-2004), current 
(2014-2018), and natural visibility conditions for Florida's Class I 
areas in section 2 of the 2021 Plan with supporting information located 
in appendix C.
    With respect to modeling information documentation pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), sections 5 and 6 of the 2021 Plan describe the 
modeling methods used to develop the plan with additional documentation 
provided in appendix E and results of the RPG modeling in section 8 of 
the plan. Appendix D contains AoI analyses documentation. Section I.E 
of the TSD to this proposed rulemaking provides a more detailed summary 
of the State's assessment of documentation of the technical basis for 
the 2021 Plan under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    d. Assessment of the Five Additional Factors in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv):
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv), Florida considered each of 
the five additional factors in developing the State's LTS and evaluated 
their relevancy for the second period. With respect to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), FDEP assessed emission reductions due to ongoing 
air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI, in 
the development of the State's 2011 baseline and 2028 projected 
emission inventories. The impact of these existing and on the way air 
pollution control programs are reflected in the 2028 RPGs for the 
Florida Class I areas, except for the measures listed in section 8.2 of 
the 2021 Plan.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), FDEP evaluated measures 
in the State designed to mitigate the impacts of construction 
activities in section 7.9.2 of the 2021 Plan. Florida's rules for air 
quality control include requirements to prevent fugitive dust from 
becoming airborne and also limit the opacity of fugitive emissions to 
equal to or less than 20 percent. The requirements of Florida rule 62-
296.320, F.A.C., General Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards, include 
preventive measures for construction activities to prevent fugitive 
dust from becoming airborne.\81\ FDEP also noted that fine soils were a 
relatively minor contributor to visibility impairment at the Class I 
areas in Florida from the baseline period of 2000-2004 through to the 
recent period of 2014-2018, as discussed in section 2.4.2 and shown in 
figures 2-1 through 2-5 (2000-2004 period); figures 2-6 through 2-8 
(2009-2013 period); and figures 2-9 through 2-13 (2014-2018 period) of 
the 2021 Plan. Thus, any fine soil contributions to regional haze from 
Florida construction activities are relatively minor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Florida's air quality rules are available at https://floridadep.gov/air/air-business-planning/content/current-air-rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), FDEP discussed source 
retirement and replacement schedules in section 8.2.2 of the 2021 Plan, 
which describes existing and planned source retirements by 2028.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), FDEP explained that 
particulate organic matter (POM) is the second most important 
contributor to fine particle mass and light extinction on the 20 
percent most impaired and 20 percent clearest days in Florida Class I 
areas during the baseline period. POM and elemental carbon (a component 
of PM2.5) are associated with wildfires, prescribed wildland 
fires, agricultural burning, and biogenic emissions from vegetation. 
Elemental carbon is a relatively minor contributor to visibility 
impairment at the Class I areas in Florida as discussed in section 
2.4.2 and demonstrated in figures 2-1 through 2-5. Florida has a 
certified Smoke Management Plan (SMP) which was most recently updated 
in 2013. The Florida Forest Service operates a burn authorization 
program that considers the potential for smoke from the burn impacting 
smoke sensitive receptors (e.g., airports, roads, hospitals, and urban 
areas). The SMP contains provisions to help minimize air pollutant and 
regional haze impacts. Florida's SMP may be found in appendix G-4 of 
the 2021 Plan for reference only.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), in section 7 of the 
2021 Plan, FDEP evaluates the anticipated net effect on visibility due 
to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over 
the period addressed by the LTS in development of the 2028 RPGs for the 
Florida Class I areas. Section 7.2 of the 2021 Plan identifies control 
measures included in the VISTAS 2028 emissions inventory. The 2028 RPGs 
are identified in section 8 of the 2021 Plan and section 8.2.2 includes 
source retirements and replacements for Florida sources. Section I.D of 
the TSD to this proposed rulemaking provides a more detailed summary of 
the State's assessment of the five additional factors in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv).
    e. Interstate Consultation: FDEP consulted with states and RPOs 
that identified Florida sources as impacting those states' (or states 
within the RPOs') Class I areas. FDEP consulted with the two states 
with one or more sources exceeding Florida's PSAT threshold at one or 
more of Florida's Class I areas.
    i. State/RPOs Requesting Consultation with Florida:
    a. MANE-VU's Ask: The following summarizes the conclusions of 
consultation related to the MANE-VU Ask \82\ for Florida. Section I.F 
of the TSD to this rulemaking provides a more detailed summary of the 
State's assessment of Florida's interstate consultation pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ MANE-VU refers to the emission reduction measures 
identified in other states as being necessary to make reasonable 
progress as ``Asks.'' The MANE-VU Ask to states outside of the MANE-
VU Region is available at https://otcair.org/manevu/Upload/Publication/Formal%20Actions/MANE-VU%20Inter-Regional%20Ask%20Final%208-25-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated August 25, 2017, MANE-VU requested that 14 
states, including Florida, address the ``Asks'' outlined in the letter 
on the basis that Florida sources exceeded the visibility impact 
threshold set by MANE-VU for at least one Class I area in the MANE-VU 
region. On October 16, 2017, MANE-VU initiated consultations with the 
states including Florida. Florida

[[Page 105525]]

disagreed with MANE-VU's assertion that Florida's statewide emissions 
are impacting visibility at MANE-VU Class I areas. Florida's viewpoints 
are reflected in the January 27, 2018, letter from VISTAS to MANE-VU. 
To resolve the disagreement, Florida sent a response letter on January 
19, 2018, to MANE-VU and noted several disagreements with MANE-VU's 
analysis. Florida documented the State's responses and viewpoints with 
respect to the MANE-VU Ask in section 10 and appendices F-4 of the 2021 
Plan. Florida believes that the State fulfilled the consultation 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) by the State's participation 
in a series of five MANE-VU consultation calls held during the period 
from October 20, 2017, to March 23, 2018, and by the State's documented 
responses to MANE-VU. Thus, FDEP determined that no further action is 
required under the RHR to address MANE-VU's requests.
    b. Georgia's Request for Consultation with Florida:
    In a letter dated November 24, 2020, the Georgia Environmental 
Protection Division requested that FDEP share Florida's FFA for its 
sources that impact Georgia's Class I areas--Cohutta, Okefenokee, and 
Wolf Island. Georgia, through VISTAS analysis, identified five Florida 
sources that had greater than one percent sulfate impact on at least 
one of Georgia's Class I areas,\83\ including Nutrien, Foley, WestRock-
Fernandina, JEA Northside, and Seminole. As described above, the Haze 
Plan includes FFAs or existing effective control analyses for these 
five facilities and identifies permit conditions that are incorporated 
into Florida's SIP or are proposed for incorporation into the SIP. The 
permit conditions proposed for incorporation are identified in the 
``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' sections of the 2021 
Plan, the 2024 Supplement, and the Second 2024 Supplement for 
incorporation into the regulatory portion of the Florida SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ None of Florida's sources exceeded the one percent PSAT 
nitrate emissions threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida responded to Georgia in a letter dated December 18, 2020, 
acknowledging that the Florida sources identified by Georgia met 
Florida's selection criteria and would be evaluated in FFAs.
    ii. Other States with Sources Contributing to Regional Haze at 
Florida's Class I Areas:
    Consultation with other states with sources contributing to 
regional haze at Florida's Class I areas is discussed in section 10 and 
appendix F of the 2021 Plan. As listed in table 7-26 of the 2021 Plan, 
Florida requested an FFA of two sources in two other states because 
these sources exceeded the State's sulfate PSAT threshold at one or 
more of Florida's Class I areas: Georgia Power Company--Plant Bowen 
(Plant Bowen) in Georgia and Tennessee Valley Authority-Shawnee Fossil 
Plant (TVA-Shawnee) in Kentucky. At the time of plan submission, FDEP 
documented in section 10 of the 2021 Plan that the State had not yet 
received a response from Georgia related to Plant Bowen or from 
Kentucky for TVA-Shawnee.\84\ Additionally, FDEP consulted with Alabama 
on Sanders Lead Co. since that facility had initially ranked greater 
than Florida's one percent threshold for PSAT contribution. Alabama 
provided additional information in a letter showing that this 
facility's recent SO2 emissions have significantly reduced 
from the initial 2028 projections.\85\ In the 2021 plan, FDEP stated 
that a scrubber went online in late 2019 and reduced the worst-case 
potential emissions from 7,961.1 tpy to approximately 1,400 tpy of 
SO2 which brought Sanders Lead Co. well below the one 
percent PSAT. Therefore, Alabama did not select the facility for a 
control evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Regarding Plant Bowen, on August 11, 2022, Georgia 
submitted a final regional haze plan for the second planning period 
which included an FFA for Plant Bowen that concluded existing 
SO2 measures for Units 1-4 at the facility are necessary 
for reasonable progress for the second period. EPA approved 
Georgia's regional haze plan on November 21, 2024. See 89 FR 92038. 
Kentucky has not yet submitted a final regional haze plan.
    \85\ The December 7, 2020, letter from the Alabama Department of 
Environmental Management confirming the lowered SO2 
emission rates can be found in appendix F-1c of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA reviewed Florida's FFAs, determinations of 
controls necessary for reasonable progress, and submitted permit 
conditions. Based on this review, EPA proposes to determine that 
Florida's LTS meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) through 
(iv).
    a. Source Selection Criteria: EPA proposes to find that Florida has 
satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) with respect to 
its description of source selection criteria, the outcomes of the 
source selection process, and the basis for using the AoI and PSAT 
thresholds and other criteria to select sources. Specifically, Florida 
provided: appendix B, which details how the State, in conjunction with 
VISTAS, created emissions inventories relied upon by the State for its 
Haze Plan; appendix C, which provides monitoring and meteorological 
data used to support selection of sources; and appendix D, which 
provides analyses supporting the AoI approach. In addition, FDEP 
summarized in the 2021 Plan the specific data that Florida used for its 
source selection analyses, including the AoI and PSAT analyses and 
results. FDEP followed EPA's 2019 Guidance recommendations to use 2028 
emissions projections to select sources and checked the accuracy of its 
2028 estimations by electing to evaluate differences between 2017-2019 
emissions and 2028 emissions projections in section 7.6.5 of the 2021 
Plan.
    EPA proposes to find that Florida captured a reasonable set of in-
state sources contributing to visibility impairment at Class I areas 
for the following reasons. AoI and PSAT are acceptable and well-
established methods for selecting sources for a control analysis and 
they enable the identification of the sources that have the largest 
impacts on visibility at Class I areas in Florida and neighboring 
states.\86\ Using a five percent AoI threshold and a one percent PSAT 
threshold, the State identified twelve Florida sources for a control 
evaluation that are projected to have the highest impact on visibility 
at both in-state and out-of-state Class I areas at the end of the 
second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ The State used the AoI process because it identifies the 
largest sources with potential visibility impacts to Class I areas 
and then used sophisticated photochemical source apportionment 
modeling to identify specific sources for control evaluations. See 
also 2019 Guidance, pp. 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, statewide SO2 emissions are expected to 
decrease in the second planning period from 2017 levels of 78,173 tpy 
of SO2 to projected 2028 levels of 66,979 tpy of 
SO2 (approximately a 14 percent reduction), and statewide 
NOX emissions are expected to decrease from 2017 levels of 
414,369 tpy NOX to projected 2028 levels of 265,453 tpy 
NOX (approximately a 36 percent reduction).\87\ Additional 
emissions reductions which have not been reflected in the 2028 
emissions projections and 2028 RPGs include the following: CD McIntosh, 
which permanently shut down Unit 3 in 2021; Foley, which had 
permanently ceased operations by May 2024; \88\ OUC Stanton, which 
announced that it will end coal-firing by the end of 2027; and 
WestRock--Panama City, which

[[Page 105526]]

permanently ceased operations in June 2022. Specific to second planning 
period visibility improvement, visibility conditions in Florida's Class 
I areas in 2028 are estimated to improve since the 2014-2018 period by 
0.62 deciview (Chassahowitzka), 0.95 deciview (Everglades), and 0.96 
deciview (St. Marks). When considered in relation to the amount of 
visibility improvement needed to reach natural conditions starting from 
the 2014-2018 period, these projected visibility improvements expected 
during the second planning period represent approximately the following 
amount of progress: 7.40 percent improvement (Chassahowitzka), 13.70 
percent improvement (Everglades), and 11.62 percent improvement (St. 
Marks).\89\ Based upon a comparison of the most recently available 20 
percent most impaired days IMPROVE data (2018-2022) \90\ to the 20 
percent most impaired days data from the end of the first planning 
period (2014-2018),\91\ in the first four years of the second planning 
period Florida's Class I areas have already achieved the following 
amount of additional progress towards natural conditions: 4.5 percent 
(Chassahowitzka), 8.1 percent (Everglades), and 16.59 percent (St. 
Marks).\92\ Also, Florida is appropriately focused on controlling point 
source SO2 emissions based on data showing ammonium sulfate 
is the dominant visibility impairing pollutant at the Florida Class I 
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Florida's statewide emissions of SO2 and 
NOX decreased during the period from 2011 to 2017 from 
172,701 tpy SO2 to 78,173 tpy SO2 and 
decreased from 608,366 to 414,369 tpy NOX. See tables 4-
1, 13-12, and 13-13 of the 2021 Plan.
    \88\ In appendix C-2 of the 2024 Supplement, Foley stated in a 
letter dated May 22, 2024, that the mill has ceased production 
operations as a pulp and paper mill.
    \89\ See visibility data for the 20 percent most impaired days 
data from table 8-1 and 2-6 of the 2021 Plan. Percentage of progress 
toward natural conditions = [((2014-2018 IMPROVE data)-(2028 RPG))/
((2014-2018 IMPROVE data)-(Natural visibility conditions))] x 100. 
Example calculation for Chassahowitzka [(17.41-16.79)/(17.41-9.03)] 
x 100 = 7.4 percent.
    \90\ The 2018-2022 IMPROVE data for the 20 percent most impaired 
days was obtained from under the header ``Means for Impairment 
Metric:''. The IMPROVE data includes visibility monitoring data for 
each Class I area. This data was filtered for each Class I area, 
listed as ``CHAS1'' (Chassahowitzka), ``EVER1'' (Everglades), and 
``SAMA1'' (St. Marks), respectively, (in column ``A'', titled 
``site''). Then data was filtered for the years 2018 through 2022 
(using column ``B'' titled ``year''). These data points were then 
filtered for the 20 percent most impaired days, indicated by ``90'' 
(in column ``C'' titled ``impairment_Group''). The resulting data 
points for each Florida Class I area within the ``haze_dv'' column 
``AK'', corresponding to each of the five years, were averaged to 
determine the 20 percent most impaired days for the 2018-2022 five-
year period. The 2018-2022 IMPROVE data for Florida's Class I areas 
are: 17.03 deciviews (Chassahowitzka), 14.37 deciviews (Everglades), 
and 16.02 deciviews (St. Marks).
    \91\ The 2014-2018 IMPROVE data was provided by Florida in table 
2-6 of the 2021 Plan.
    \92\ Percentage of progress toward natural conditions = [((2014-
2018 IMPROVE data)-(2018-2022 IMPROVE data))/((2014-2018 IMPROVE 
data)-(Natural visibility conditions))] x100. Example calculation 
for Chassahowitzka: [(17.41-17.03)/(17.41-9.03)] x 100 = 4.5 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Consideration of the Four CAA Factors:
    i. FFAs: EPA proposes to find that FDEP's reasonable progress 
determinations and conclusions for the selected sources are reasonable 
and that Florida submissions satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(i) as discussed below.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See also section I.B of the TSD for additional details 
regarding Florida's FFAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Foley: Regarding Foley, EPA proposes to find FDEP's 
determinations of measures that are necessary for reasonable progress 
are reasonable as described below.
    The State evaluated available and technically feasible 
SO2 controls based on, where applicable, estimated values of 
capital costs, annualized costs, and cost per ton of emission 
reductions, consistent with recommendations in the Cost Manual.
    For the No. 1 Power Boiler, the State evaluated adding a wet 
scrubber with an estimated cost of $13,547/ton, and DSI with an 
estimated cost of $21,727/ton and determined that these controls are 
not cost effective.
    FDEP determined that existing measures are necessary for reasonable 
progress. Specifically, the No. 1 Power Boiler shall fire only natural 
gas except for periods of natural gas curtailment, pipeline 
disruptions, or physical mill problems that otherwise prevent the 
firing of natural gas in this unit. For future additions of No. 6 fuel 
oil to the common tank, the maximum sulfur content shall be 1.02 
percent by weight with compliance determined by maintaining records of 
fuel deliveries, analytical methods, and results of analysis. Tall oil 
is no longer an authorized fuel.
    For the No. 1 Power Boiler, EPA proposes to find that FDEP's 
determination to impose limitations for existing measures is reasonable 
and necessary for reasonable progress.
    For No. 1 Bark Boiler, as the unit was already equipped with a wet 
venturi scrubber, Florida considered operating scenarios to achieve 
additional SO2 emissions reductions, and determined that 
running the wet venturi scrubber with requirements on minimum pH and 
flow rate whenever a LVHC-NCG or oil is fired is cost-effective and 
necessary for reasonable progress, resulting in a 51 percent reduction 
in SO2 emissions annually. EPA proposes to find that FDEP's 
determination to require more frequent operation of the wet venturi 
scrubber for the No. 1 Bark Boiler is reasonable and that this measure 
is necessary for reasonable progress. Additionally, EPA proposes to 
find that FDEP's determination to impose the low-sulfur fuel 
restrictions for the No. 1 Bark Boiler that are similar to the 
restrictions proposed for No. 1 Power Boiler (except the No. 1 Bark 
Boiler is permitted to burn wood in addition to natural gas as the 
primary fuel type) is reasonable and that these measures are necessary 
for reasonable progress.
    For the recovery boilers, the State evaluated wet scrubbers with 
estimated costs of $7,779/ton for Recovery Furnace No. 2; $5,197/ton 
for Recovery Furnace No. 3; and $6,587/ton for Recovery Furnace No. 4. 
Florida determined that these measures were not cost effective, but 
proposed existing measures as necessary for reasonable progress. EPA 
proposes to find that FDEP's determination to impose requirements for 
the following existing measures--black liquor as the primary fuel; 
natural gas and liquid fuels as supplements to recovery operations; a 
maximum sulfur content of 1.02 percent for purchased no. 6 fuel oil; 
and a SO2 emissions cap of 3,200 tons per consecutive 12 
operating months as measured by CEMS--is reasonable and that these 
measures are necessary for reasonable progress.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to incorporate into the Florida SIP the 
permit conditions from permit number 1230001-121-AC that are identified 
in the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' section of the 
Second 2024 Supplement.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See pp. 8-14 under ``Appendix A'' of ``Materials to be 
Incorporated into the SIP'' contained within filename ``SIP 2024-01 
Part II SIP Regional Haze Amendment Supplement October 28 2024.pdf'' 
included with the Second 2024 Supplement which is in the docket for 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. JEA Northside: Regarding JEA Northside Unit 3,\95\ EPA proposes 
to find that FDEP's determinations regarding applicable controls for 
this source at JEA Northside are reasonable. The State evaluated 
available and technically feasible SO2 controls that were 
based on, where applicable, estimated values of capital costs, 
annualized costs, and cost per ton of emission reductions, consistent 
with recommendations in the Cost Manual. For NGS Unit 3, EPA proposes 
to find FDEP's determination that switching to lower sulfur No. 6 fuel 
oil at $3,053/ton of SO2 removed is necessary for reasonable 
progress is reasonable. Thus, EPA proposes to incorporate into the 
Florida SIP the permit conditions from

[[Page 105527]]

permit number 0310045-057-AC that are listed under ``Materials to be 
Incorporated into the SIP'' section of the 2021 Plan.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The associated permits documenting proposed conditions and 
limits in the SIP may be found in appendix G-3 of the 2021 Plan.
    \96\ See p. 13 under ``JEA Northside Unit 3 . . .'' under 
``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' in filename ``Final 
SIP 2021-01 Regional Haze.pdf'' included with the 2021 Plan which is 
in the docket for this rulemaking. These permit conditions are also 
summarized in section 7.8.1.1.5 of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. WestRock-Fernandina: EPA proposes to find FDEP's determinations 
regarding applicable controls for the sources at WestRock-Fernandina 
are reasonable. The State evaluated available and technically feasible 
SO2 controls based on, where applicable, estimated values of 
capital costs, annualized costs, and cost per ton of emission 
reductions, consistent with recommendations in the Cost Manual.
    Regarding the No. 7 Power Boiler, FDEP evaluated removing coal as a 
fuel ($7,374/ton), reducing coal usage (cost savings $1,868/ton), FGD 
without and with a stack liner ($5,641/ton and $6,028/ton, 
respectively), DSI ($8,776/ton), and SDA ($16,398/ton). EPA proposes to 
find FDEP's determination for the No. 7 Power Boiler that reducing coal 
usage to 125 tpd is cost-effective is reasonable, and proposes to find 
that reducing coal usage is necessary for reasonable progress for the 
No. 7 Power Boiler.\97\ Therefore, EPA proposes to incorporate into the 
Florida SIP the permit conditions from permit number 0890003-072-AC 
that are listed under the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' 
section of the 2021 Plan; \98\ and the permit condition from permit 
number 0890003-074-AC and listed in appendix A-1 of the 2024 
Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Existing measures for the No. 7 Power Boiler can be found 
in section 7.8.2.1.5, Summary of Findings for WestRock-Fernandina 
Beach No.7 Power Boiler (EU15), of the 2021 Plan and section 
7.8.2.5.5, Summary of Findings for No.7 Power Boiler, of the 2024 
Supplement.
    \98\ See pp. 15-16 under ``WestRock Fernandina Beach Mill . . 
.'' under ``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' in filename 
``Final SIP 2021-01 Regional Haze.pdf'' included with the 2021 Plan 
which is in the docket for this rulemaking. These permit conditions 
are also summarized in section 7.8.2.1.5 of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the No. 5 Power Boiler, FDEP evaluated a wet scrubber 
system without and with a stack liner ($285,615/ton and $298,499/ton, 
respectively) and DSI ($277,093/ton). For the Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery 
Boilers, FDEP evaluated a wet scrubber system at $282,375/ton and 
$169,425/ton, respectively. EPA proposes to find FDEP's determination 
that existing SO2 measures at the No. 5 Power Boiler and the 
Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers previously approved into the SIP \99\ are 
necessary for reasonable progress is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017); 40 CFR 52.520(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Existing, Effective Control Demonstrations:
    EPA proposes to find that certain existing SO2 measures 
at the affected units of the eight facilities evaluated for existing, 
effective control demonstrations are necessary for reasonable progress, 
and thus, EPA proposes to include these measures in the SIP.
    EPA proposes to find that FDEP's proposed adoption of the 0.20 lb/
MMBtu MATS limit for the fossil fuel steam generating Unit 4 and Unit 5 
at Duke-Crystal River and the permit requirements that allow the citrus 
combined cycle station Units 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B to combust only 
pipeline natural gas is reasonable. The 2019 Guidance provides several 
scenarios in which EPA believes it may be reasonable for a state not to 
select a particular source for further analysis. One such scenario is 
applicable to Duke-Crystal River--a coal-fired EGU that has add-on FGD 
and meets the applicable alternative SO2 emission limit of 
0.2 lb/MMBtu in the MATS rule. The 2019 Guidance states that it is 
unlikely that an analysis of control measures for a source already 
equipped with a scrubber and meeting a 0.20 lb/MMBtu limit or having 
fuel combustion units that is restricted to combust only pipeline 
natural gas per enforceable requirements would conclude that even more 
stringent control of SO2 is necessary to make reasonable 
progress. See 2019 Guidance at 23.
    EPA evaluated FGD control efficiency data at Units 4 and 5 at Duke-
Crystal River and calculated that the existing FGD systems routinely 
achieve 96.2-98.9 percent yearly average SO2 removal 
efficiencies based on 2017-2023 data during periods when coal is one of 
the fuel sources consumed, with a seven-year average (2017-2023) 
SO2 removal efficiencies of 97.0 and 96.8 percent, 
respectively.\100\ Therefore, for Duke-Crystal River's Units 4 and 5, 
EPA proposes to find it reasonable that an FFA would likely result in 
the conclusion that no further SO2 emissions controls 
(including FGD upgrades) are necessary for reasonable progress. 
Therefore, EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination that these 
existing SO2 measures are necessary for reasonable progress 
and must be adopted into the SIP is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file that is 
included in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find as reasonable FDEP's determination that an 
SO2 limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu in combination with the MATS-
based SO2 emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu at CFB Boilers 1 
and 2 at JEA Northside demonstrate existing, effective SO2 
measures for these units. Regarding FGD control efficiencies at CFB 
Boilers 1 and 2 JEA Northside, EPA evaluated data from 2017-2023 and 
calculated that the existing FGD systems routinely achieve 94.8 to 96.6 
percent yearly average SO2 removal efficiencies when 
consuming coal, having seven-year average (2017-2023) SO2 
removal efficiencies of 95.8 percent.\101\ Therefore, EPA proposes to 
find FDEP's determination that an FFA would likely result in the 
conclusion that no further SO2 emissions controls (including 
FGD upgrades) is reasonable and that these measures are necessary for 
reasonable progress. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the proposed 
emissions limits are necessary for reasonable progress and must be 
adopted into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file that is 
included in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find as reasonable FDEP's determination that 
Mosaic-Bartow's SAPs 4, 5, and 6 have existing, effective controls. 
Currently, these units use dual absorption process with cesium catalyst 
to control SO2 emissions and restrictions in the SIP to 
limit the three SAPs at the facility to four lbs/ton of 100 percent 
sulfuric acid produced, which is consistent with controls identified in 
EPA's RBLC. In addition, the facility has a three-unit cap at 1,100 
lbs/hour on a 24-hour block average and had recent upgrades to reduce 
SO2 emissions. Thus, EPA proposes to find FDEP's 
determination that SAPs 4, 5, and 6 are effectively controlled 
reasonable, and that an FFA would likely result in the conclusion that 
no further SO2 emissions controls these measures are 
necessary for reasonable progress.
    EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination is reasonable that 
existing SO2 measures at Mosaic-New Wales' SAPs 1-5, which 
use dual absorption process with cesium-promoted catalyst, constitute 
existing, effective SO2 controls. The combination of the 
dual absorption design and the cesium-promoted catalysts represents 
BACT for sulfur-burning, non-single absorption column SAPs in 
accordance with the RBLC. Current restrictions in the SIP limit the 
Nos. 1-3 SAPs to 3.5 lbs/ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid produced on a 
24-hr rolling average and four lbs/ton of sulfuric acid produced on a 
three-hour rolling average, while SAPs 4 and

[[Page 105528]]

5 are each required to meet a limit of 4.0 lbs/ton of sulfuric acid 
produced. In addition, the facility has a five-unit cap at 1,090 lbs/
hour on a 24-hour block average. Thus, EPA proposes to find FDEP's 
determination reasonable that SAPs 1-5 have effective SO2 
control measures for Mosaic-New Wales, and that an FFA would likely 
result in the conclusion that no further SO2 emissions 
controls are necessary for reasonable progress.
    EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination is reasonable that 
existing SO2 measures at Mosaic-South Pierce's SAPs 10 and 
11, which use dual absorption process with cesium-promoted catalyst, 
constitute existing effective SO2 controls. The combination 
of the dual absorption design and the cesium-promoted catalysts 
represents BACT for sulfur-burning, non-single absorption column SAPs 
in accordance with the RBLC. Current restrictions in the SIP impose a 
750 lbs/hour SO2 limit on a 24-hour block average. Thus, EPA 
proposes to find FDEP's determination reasonable that Mosaic-South 
Pierce's SAPs 10 and 11 have effective SO2 control measures, 
and that an FFA would likely result in the conclusion that no further 
SO2 emissions controls these measures are necessary for 
reasonable progress.
    EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination that Nutrien's SAPs 
E and F have existing effective controls for SO2 is 
reasonable. Nutrien's SAPs E and F currently use dual absorption 
process with cesium catalyst. Current restrictions in the SIP impose 
SO2 emission limits at 2.6 lbs/ton, three-hour rolling 
average; 2.3 lbs/ton, 365-day rolling average, which applies during 
periods of shutdown and startup; and 840 lbs/hour on a 24-hour block 
averaging period. The facility elected to complete upgrades on SAP E 
and SAP F, which included changing out and augmenting the converter 
catalyst in the SAPs to meet the limits. EPA proposes to find that the 
State adequately demonstrates that Nutrien's SAPs E and F are 
effectively controlled, and that an FFA would likely result in the 
conclusion that no further SO2 emissions controls are 
necessary for reasonable.
    EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination that TECO-Big Bend 
has existing effective controls for SO2 for Unit 4 is 
reasonable. TECO-Big Bend's SO2 emissions are limited by the 
MATS limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu which FDEP is proposing to incorporate into 
the SIP. Regarding FGD control efficiencies at Unit 4 at TECO-Big Bend, 
EPA evaluated data from 2017-2023 for Unit 4 and calculated that the 
existing FGD system routinely achieves 92.2-97.1 percent yearly average 
SO2 removal efficiencies during periods when coal is one of 
the fuel sources consumed, with a seven-year average (2017-2023) 
SO2 removal efficiency of 95.8 percent.\102\ As mentioned 
above, Unit 3 at TECO-Big Bend was permanently retired from electric 
generation service on April 26, 2023, and therefore, Florida's 
demonstration of existing, effective controls is no longer relevant and 
no further action is required by EPA.\103\ Therefore, EPA proposes to 
find FDEP's determination that TECO-Big Bend Unit 4 is effectively 
controlled is reasonable, and that an FFA would likely result in the 
conclusion that no further SO2 emissions controls (including 
FGD upgrades) are necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file that is 
included in the docket for this proposed action.
    \103\ The Retired Unit Exemption Form for TECO Big Bend Unit 3 
is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination that 
Seminole has existing effective controls for SO2 for steam 
electric generators Nos. 1 and 2 is reasonable. The MATS SO2 
limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu applies to the Seminole facility, and Florida 
identified this emission limit for incorporation into the SIP. 
Regarding FGD control efficiencies at Unit Nos. 1 and 2 at Seminole 
during periods when coal is one of the fuel sources consumed, EPA 
evaluated data from 2017-2023 and calculated that the existing FGD 
systems routinely achieve 96.5-97.3 percent yearly average 
SO2 removal efficiencies, with a seven-year average (2017-
2023) SO2 removal efficiency of 96.8 percent.\104\ 
Therefore, EPA proposes to find FDEP determination reasonable that 
Seminole Unit Nos. 1 and 2 are effectively controlled, and that an FFA 
would likely result in the conclusion that no further SO2 
emissions controls (including FGD upgrades) are necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file that is 
included in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Documentation of Technical Basis: With respect to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iii), EPA proposes to find that Florida adequately 
documented cost, engineering, emissions, modeling, and monitoring 
information to determine the measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress for the following reasons. With regard to emissions 
information, as required by the RHR, the State included the required 
years of the most recent triennial emissions inventory (2017) and the 
most recent annual SO2 emissions data for specific sources 
(2019) available at the time of the development of the 2021 Plan. FDEP 
provided actual emissions inventory data for 2011, 2014, and 2017, and 
emissions projections for 2028 in its Haze Plan. Specifically, table 4-
1 provides a 2011 emissions inventory for Florida which includes the 
visibility impairing pollutants and carbon monoxide. Emissions from the 
2014 and 2017 NEIs are provided in tables 13-11, 13-12, and 13-13 for 
PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, respectively. For 
all Florida facilities with emissions of either SO2 or 
NOX greater than 100 tpy in 2017, table 7-28 
(SO2) includes actual emissions for 2017, 2018, and 2019, 
and 2028 (remodeled) projected emissions. With regard to cost and 
engineering information, the State provided the underlying cost 
calculations associated with the cost summaries in section 7.8 of the 
Haze Plan for Foley, JEA Northside, and WestRock-Fernandina, and the 
proposed FFAs in appendix G provide engineering analyses evaluating 
potential new control measures. With regard to monitoring data, the 
State provided IMPROVE data for the modeling base period plus baseline, 
current (2014-2018), and natural conditions for all VISTAS Class I 
areas with more detailed data provided for the Florida Class I areas. 
With regard to modeling information, the State documented the modeling 
input and outputs and assumptions in the Haze Plan and the results of 
the modeling related to RPGs and PSAT source impacts at Class I areas.
    d. Assessment of Five Additional Factors in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv):
    EPA proposes to find that Florida has satisfied the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) because FDEP considered each of the five 
additional factors, discussed the measures the State has in place to 
address each factor (or discussed why such measures are not needed), 
and where relevant, explained how each factor informed FDEP's and 
VISTAS' technical analyses for the second planning period.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), EPA proposes to find 
that FDEP adequately addressed the requirement to assess emission 
reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including 
measures to address RAVI, through the State's emissions inventory work 
for the base year of 2011 as projected out to 2028.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), EPA proposes to find 
that Florida adequately addressed this requirement to evaluate measures 
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities by describing a 
state regulation that addresses control of fugitive airborne dust and 
considering

[[Page 105529]]

the minor impact fine soils have on visibility.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), EPA proposes to find 
that Florida adequately addressed source retirement and replacement 
schedules by summarizing existing and planned source retirements in 
section 8.2.2 in the 2021 Plan.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), EPA proposes to find 
that Florida adequately addressed the requirement to consider the 
State's basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for 
agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke 
management programs. The State describes its SMP to mitigate 
PM2.5 emissions associated with prescribed burning and 
highlights its burn authorization program, operated by Florida's Forest 
Service, that considers the potential impact of smoke at sensitive 
receptors.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), EPA proposes to find 
that Florida assessed the anticipated net effect on visibility due to 
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the 
second planning period in development of the 2028 RPGs for the Florida 
Class I areas. FDEP also identifies control measures included in the 
VISTAS 2028 emissions inventory and source retirements and 
replacements. FDEP used the 2011 base year emissions inventory to 
project emissions from various source sectors to 2028, the end of the 
second planning period. FDEP, through VISTAS, completed CAMx modeling 
to estimate visibility impairment in 2028 based on projected 2028 
emissions from the 2011 base year inventory and using IMPROVE 
monitoring data for 2009-2013. As mentioned previously, atmospheric 
ammonium sulfate is the largest contributor to visibility impairment in 
Class I areas in the Southeast. VISTAS emission sensitivity modeling 
determined that the most effective way to reduce ammonium sulfate is to 
reduce SO2 emissions from EGUs and non-utility industrial 
point sources.
    e. Interstate Consultation: Based on the consultation documentation 
described in section III.C.2.e of this document and section I.F. of the 
TSD to this proposed rulemaking, EPA proposes to find that Florida has 
met the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) to consult with 
those states with Class I areas that Florida emissions impact for 
visibility and to consult with those states whose sources are impacting 
Florida's Class I areas.\105\ Additionally, Florida appropriately 
responded to and documented requests from MANE-VU to address upwind 
emissions from sources in VISTAS states. Lastly, FDEP completed the 
requested emissions control analyses for the five facilities and 
provided the State's analyses and conclusions of these analyses in 
section 7.6 and 7.8 of the 2021 Plan and 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Specifically, EPA proposes to find that FDEP appropriately 
responded to and documented requests from Georgia to complete FFAs 
or existing, effective control demonstrations for the SO2 
emissions from Foley, JEA Northside, Nutrien, Seminole, and 
WestRock-Fernandina in Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also proposes to find that FDEP appropriately consulted with 
other states, namely Kentucky, Georgia, and Alabama regarding specific 
sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility 
impairment at Class I areas in Florida in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(ii). EPA proposes to conclude that Florida appropriately 
documented its interstate consultations regarding Florida sources 
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at Class 
I areas outside of the State and sources in other states reasonably 
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at Florida's Class I 
areas.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ EPA is proposing action on Florida's source selection and 
control analyses in this rulemaking on the State's Haze Plan. Thus, 
EPA is not proposing action regarding the adequacy of other states' 
responses to Florida's requests for consultation pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(ii) in this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. RPGs

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements 
pertaining to RPGs for each Class I area. Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) 
requires a state in which a Class I area is located to establish RPGs--
one each for the most impaired and clearest days--reflecting the 
visibility conditions that will be achieved at the end of the planning 
period as a result of the emission limitations, compliance schedules 
and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) to be in states' 
LTS, as well as implementation of other CAA requirements. The LTS, as 
reflected by the RPGs, must provide for an improvement in visibility on 
the most impaired days relative to the baseline period and ensure no 
degradation on the clearest days relative to the baseline period. 
Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances in which a Class I 
area's RPG for the most impaired days represents a slower rate of 
visibility improvement than the URP calculated under 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in 
which a mandatory Class I area is located establishes an RPG for the 
most impaired days that provides for a slower rate of visibility 
improvement than the URP, the state must demonstrate that there are no 
additional emission reduction measures for anthropogenic sources or 
groups of sources in the state that would be reasonable to include in 
its LTS. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a state contains 
sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility 
impairment in a Class I area in another state, and the RPG for the most 
impaired days in that Class I area is above the URP, the upwind state 
must provide the same demonstration.
    2. State Assessment: Florida identified the 2028 RPGs for each of 
its Class I areas in deciviews. Florida's RPGs are listed in table 3.

                       Table 3--Florida Class I Areas' 2028 RPGs and URP in Deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2028 RPG clearest     2028 RPG most
                      Class I area                                20%            impaired 20%        2028 URP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chassahowitzka..........................................               12.54               16.79           18.36
St. Marks...............................................               11.59               16.43           18.26
Everglades..............................................                9.88               13.95           15.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida's 2028 RPGs on the 20 percent most impaired days are below 
the URP for all Florida Class I areas. The 2028 RPGs on the 20 percent 
clearest days showed no degradation since the 2000-2004 baseline 
period.
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to determine that Florida has 
satisfied the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) relating 
to RPGs. Florida provided 2028 RPGs for the most impaired and clearest 
days for the three

[[Page 105530]]

Class I areas in the State subject to the RHR. Specifically, the State 
established 2028 RPGs expressed in deciviews that reflect the 
visibility conditions that are projected to be achieved by the end of 
the second planning period as a result of implementation of the LTS and 
other CAA requirements. Florida's 2028 RPGs show an improvement in 
visibility for the 20 percent most impaired days since the baseline 
period (2000-2004) and show no degradation in visibility for the 20 
percent clearest days since the baseline period. The RPGs in the Haze 
Plan provide for a faster rate of visibility improvement than the URP, 
and thus, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) does not apply to Florida. 
Additionally, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), does not apply to Florida 
because the Class I areas impacted by emissions from Florida's sources 
are below their respective URPs.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Regional Haze Plan Requirements

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each 
comprehensive revision of a state's regional haze SIP must contain or 
provide for certain elements, including monitoring strategies, 
emissions inventories, and any reporting, recordkeeping and other 
measures needed to assess and report on visibility. A main requirement 
of this subsection is for states with Class I areas to submit 
monitoring strategies for measuring, characterizing, and reporting on 
visibility impairment. Compliance with this requirement may be met 
through participation in the IMPROVE network.
    Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the 
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to 
assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for 
all mandatory Class I areas within the state are being achieved.
    Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for procedures by 
which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at mandatory Class I areas both within and 
outside the state. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply to Florida, 
as it has Class I areas. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to 
provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state. 
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide 
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for 
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of 
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the 
inventory periodically. Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), if EPA or the FLM of 
an affected Class I area has advised a State that additional monitoring 
is needed to assess RAVI, the State must include in its SIP revision 
for the second planning period an appropriate strategy for evaluating 
such impairment.
    2. State Assessment:
    a. Section 51.308(f)(6)(i): Florida relies on the IMPROVE 
monitoring network to meet the monitoring strategy requirements and 
contends that the existing IMPROVE monitors for the State's Class I 
areas are adequate and no additional monitoring sites or equipment are 
needed to assess whether RPGs for all mandatory Class I areas within 
the State are being achieved.
    b. Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii): Florida states that data produced by 
the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used for preparing the five-year 
progress reports and the 10-year comprehensive SIP revisions, each of 
which rely on analysis of the preceding five years of IMPROVE monitor 
data.
    c. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii): This provision applies to states with 
no mandatory Class I areas, and therefore, does not apply to Florida.
    d. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv): With respect to 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(6)(iv), NPS manages and oversees the IMPROVE monitoring 
network and reviews, verifies, and validates IMPROVE data before its 
submission to EPA's Air Quality System. Florida believes the existing 
IMPROVE monitors for the State's Class I areas are sufficient for the 
purposes of this Haze Plan. Florida believes that participation of the 
state organizations, including FDEP, in the IMPROVE Steering Committee 
adequately represents the needs of the State.
    e. Section 51.308(f)(6)(v): FDEP provided a statewide, baseline 
emissions inventory of pollutants for the year 2011 in table 4-1 of the 
2021 Plan which includes the following pollutants: carbon monoxide, 
NH3, NOX, PM10,\107\ PM2.5, 
SO2, and VOC. The 2011 base year modeling platform was the 
best platform available at the time the modeling work began in late 
2017. Emissions and modeling work should begin three years before haze 
plans are due because of the significant amount of time required to 
complete the work one year in advance of preparing the haze plans. 
FDEP, through VISTAS, discussed the selection of modeling platforms 
with EPA and reliance on the 2011 base year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ PM10 is particulate matter of greater than or 
equal to 10 micrometers ([micro]m) in diameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FDEP provided in tables 13-11, 13-12, 13-13 of the 
2021 Plan statewide emissions data for 2014 (NEI), 2017 (NEI), and 2018 
emissions projections developed in the first planning period for 
PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, respectively, by 
source category in support of the progress report elements of its plan. 
Also, in table 7-1 of the 2021 Plan, FDEP includes both the 2011 actual 
and 2028 projected emissions for the criteria air pollutants, including 
SO2, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 
for all VISTAS states including Florida. FDEP commits to periodically 
update its statewide emissions inventories under 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(6)(v).
    f. Section 51.308(f)(6)(vi): There are no elements, including 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other measures, necessary to address and 
report on visibility for Florida's Class I areas or Class I areas 
outside the State that are affected by sources in Florida.
    g. Section 51.308(f)(4): With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), the 
State did not include a strategy for evaluating RAVI for any Class I 
areas because no Federal agency requested additional monitoring to 
assess RAVI.
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to find that Florida has satisfied 
the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) and (6) related to 
RAVI, visibility monitoring, and emissions inventories.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), EPA proposes to find that this 
requirement does not apply to Florida at this time because neither EPA 
nor the FLMs requested additional monitoring to assess RAVI.
    EPA proposes to find that Florida satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), 
which is generally met by the State's continued participation in the 
IMPROVE monitoring network and the VISTAS RPO, for the following 
reasons.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), EPA proposes to find that 
the existing IMPROVE monitors relied upon for the State's three Class I 
areas are adequate, and thus, additional monitoring sites or equipment 
are not needed to assess whether RPGs for all Class I areas within the 
State are being achieved.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), Florida has procedures by 
which monitoring data from the IMPROVE will be used to for preparing 
the five-year progress reports and the 10-year comprehensive SIP 
revisions.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii), this provision is 
applicable for states with no Class I areas and does not apply to 
Florida.

[[Page 105531]]

    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iv), EPA proposes to find that 
Florida's participation in the IMPROVE Steering Committee and the 
IMPROVE monitoring network addresses this requirement.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v), EPA proposes to find that 
Florida's continued participation in VISTAS' efforts for projecting 
future emissions and continued compliance with the requirements of the 
AERR to periodically update emissions inventories satisfies the 
requirement to provide for an emissions inventory for the most recent 
year for which data are available. EPA proposes to find that Florida 
adequately documented that no further elements are necessary at this 
time for the State to assess and report on visibility pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward the 
RPGs

    1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic 
comprehensive revisions of states' regional haze plans address the 
progress report requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The 
purpose of these requirements is to evaluate progress toward the 
applicable RPGs for each Class I area within the state and each Class I 
area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within 
that state. Section 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and 
require a description of the status of implementation of all measures 
included in a state's first planning period regional haze plan and a 
summary of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of 
those measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to states with Class 
I areas within their borders and requires such states to assess current 
visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline 
(2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions 
relative to the period addressed in the first planning period progress 
report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and requires an 
analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to 
visibility impairment from all sources and sectors since the period 
addressed by the first planning period progress report. This provision 
further specifies the year or years through which the analysis must 
extend depending on the type of source and the platform through which 
its emission information is reported. Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), 
which also applies to all states, requires an assessment of any 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the 
state have occurred since the period addressed by the first planning 
period progress report, including whether such changes were anticipated 
and whether they have limited or impeded expected progress toward 
reducing emissions and improving visibility.
    2. State Assessment: With respect to the progress report elements 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), FDEP addressed these elements in 
section 13 of the 2021 Plan for the period 2014 to 2019.
    Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2), FDEP describes the status of 
the implementation of the measures of the LTS from the first planning 
period in section 13.2 of the 2021 Plan and provides a summary of the 
emission reductions achieved by implementing those measures as such 
data is available in section 13.3 of the 2021 Plan. With respect to 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(1), section 13.1.1 of the 2021 Plan lists key emissions 
control measures relied upon for Florida's first regional haze plan 
submitted March 19, 2010 (``2010 Haze Plan'').\108\ Section 13.3.2 
identifies key measures that contributed to emission reductions during 
the first planning period but were not a part of the LTS for the first 
period (e.g., 2010 SO2 NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ The 2010 Haze Plan was amended twice. See 78 FR 53250 
(August 29, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), Florida continued to focus on 
SO2 emissions reductions because the State determined that 
ammonium sulfate was the most important contributor to visibility 
impairment and fine particle mass on the 20 percent best and 20 percent 
worst days in the first planning period. Florida reported on emission 
reductions achieved by Federal and state measures relied upon to 
project the 2018 RPGs for the first period haze plan, including 2007 
Heavy-Duty Highway Rule, Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, 
and the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act. In addition, the State 
provided emission reductions for sources evaluated for controls in the 
first period haze plan as follows. Table 13-4 of the 2021 Plan lists 
the 15 facilities that had units for which a reasonable progress 
determination was made and the current status. All facilities that were 
required to implement reasonable progress controls or measures have met 
their compliance dates. During the 2014-2019 period, SO2 
emissions from the units listed in table 13-4 decreased by 60,752 tpy.
    Table 13-5 lists the 12 sources for which a BART control 
determination was made. Sources that were exempt from BART analysis or 
shut down prior to submission of the first regional haze SIP are not 
listed. All BART controls have been implemented as of December 31, 
2018. During the 2014-2019 period, SO2 emissions from these 
units decreased by 43,416 tons per year, NOX emissions 
decreased by 10,073 tpy, and PM emissions decreased by 1,742 tpy.
    Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), FDEP calculated for Florida's three 
Class I areas: the current visibility conditions (2014-2018); the 
difference between current visibility conditions compared to the 
baseline; and the change in visibility impairment for the most and 
least impaired days over the past five years.\109\ FDEP concluded that 
IMPROVE monitoring data for 2014-2018 show that all Florida Class I 
areas are well below the 2018 RPGs for the 20 percent most impaired 
days and there is no degradation on the 20 percent clearest days, which 
is illustrated in figures 13-4 through 13-9 of the 2021 Plan.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See table 13-6 (20 percent most impaired days) and table 
13-7 (20 percent clearest days) of the 2021 Plan.
    \110\ `Model Projection' = RPG and `Observation' = IMPROVE data 
in figures 13-4 through 13-9 of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), in section 13.5 of the 2021 Plan, 
FDEP provided emissions trends from 2014 through 2019 for 
SO2 and NOX which reflect the emissions 
reductions from the measures in the first planning period LTS. In 
summary, from 2014 to 2019, statewide EGU emissions of SO2 
and NOX have reduced (in percent) by 82.77 and 48.31, 
respectively. Statewide EGU SO2 emissions decreased from 
99,074 tpy in 2014 to 17,075 tpy in 2019 as shown in table 13-14 of the 
2021 Plan. Statewide EGU NOX emissions decreased from 
442,412 tpy in 2014 to 228,673 tpy in 2019. Additionally, in table 13-
13, FDEP provides statewide SO2 emissions information for 
Florida from the 2014 NEI and 2017 NEI inventories. Again, total 
statewide SO2 emissions are shown to have decreased 47.53 
percent from 164,468 tpy in 2014 to 78,173 tpy in 2017.
    Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), FDEP reviewed anthropogenic 
SO2, and NOX emissions trends based on emissions 
information included in the 2014 and 2017 NEIs for the VISTAS states 
and all of the RPOs. The data show a decline in PM2.5, 
NOX, and SO2 emissions from 2014 through 2017 NEI 
and these emissions are lower than the 2018 VISTAS RPG in most cases as 
shown in table 13-11, 13-12, and 13-13 of the 2021 Plan. Florida 
concluded that there does not appear to be any significant change in 
anthropogenic emissions within Florida that would limit or

[[Page 105532]]

impede progress in reducing pollutant emissions or improving 
visibility.
    Section II of the TSD to this proposed rulemaking provides a more 
detailed summary of the State's assessment of how Florida addressed 
requirements for periodic reports describing progress toward the RPGs 
for the State's Class I areas pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5).
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to find that FDEP has met the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP submission 
describes the measures included in the LTS from the first planning 
period, as well as the status of their implementation and the emission 
reductions achieved through such implementation. EPA proposes to find 
that FDEP met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) because the State 
reported on the visibility conditions and changes at Florida's Class I 
areas. EPA proposes to find that FDEP met the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(4) by providing an adequate analysis tracking the changes in 
emissions since the first period progress report using available 
emissions data since 2013 and appropriately included the 2017 NEI data, 
which is the most recent triennial emissions inventory submission from 
Florida prior to submission of the Haze Plan and included the annual 
2019 emissions data. Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), FDEP believes that 
there does not appear to be any significant change in anthropogenic 
emissions within Florida that have occurred since the period addressed 
in the most recent plan that would limit or impede progress in reducing 
pollutant emissions or improving visibility. For these reasons, EPA is 
proposing to find that Florida has met the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(5).

G. Requirements for State and FLM Coordination

    1. CAA/RHR Requirement: Section 169A(d) of the Act requires states 
to consult with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed 
regional haze SIP, and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions 
and recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, Sec.  
51.308(i)(2)'s FLM consultation provision requires a state to provide 
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the 
state's policy analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that 
information and recommendations provided by the FLMs' can meaningfully 
inform the state's decisions on its LTS. If the consultation has taken 
place at least 120 days before a public hearing or public comment 
period, the opportunity for consultation will be deemed early enough. 
Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 
60 days before a public hearing or public comment period at the state 
level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides two substantive topics on 
which FLMs must be provided an opportunity to discuss with states: 
assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and 
recommendations on the development and implementation of strategies to 
address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires states, in 
developing their implementation plans, to include a description of how 
they addressed FLMs' comments. Section 51.308(i)(4) requires that the 
regional haze SIP revision provide procedures for continuing 
consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the state's 
visibility protection program.
    2. State Assessment:
    a. General: As required by CAA section 169A(d), Florida consulted 
with the FLMs prior to opening both State public comment periods \111\ 
and included summaries of the conclusions and recommendations of the 
FLMs in section 10.4.1 with copies of the FLMs' comments in appendices 
H-4 and H-5 of the proposed plan dated June 9, 2021, and in the public 
participation section of the proposed supplement dated January 19, 
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ FDEP provided draft plans to the FLMs on April 2, 2021, 
and June 8, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) FDEP offered the opportunity to 
consult on the May 18, 2021, draft Florida Haze Plan to the three FLM 
agencies. Additionally, FDEP shared with the FLMs the June 9, 2021, 
Prehearing Florida Haze Plan.\112\ A summary of this consultation 
process is discussed and documented in section 10.4.1 of the 2021 Plan 
with supporting information in appendix H and appendix F. Regarding FLM 
consultation related to the 2024 Supplement development, FDEP offered 
the opportunity to consult on the 2024 Supplement to the three FLM 
agencies on June 8, 2023. The 2024 Supplement was issued for State 
public notice and comment on January 19, 2024, with a public hearing 
scheduled February 27, 2024, and a close of comment period February 19, 
2024; however, FDEP received a request for an extension of the comment 
period and granted the request by extending the comment period to March 
8, 2024. The public hearing, which was rescheduled for March 20, 2024, 
was cancelled because FDEP did not receive any requests for a hearing. 
A summary of this consultation process is discussed and documented in 
the public participation section of the 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ The June 9, 2021, Prehearing Florida Haze Plan was issued 
for a State public notice and had a comment period that closed on 
July 9, 2021. The public hearing was held on July 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), FDEP provided responses to NPS 
comments in section 10.4.1 of the 2021 Plan and in the public 
participation section of the 2024 Supplement.
    With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Florida has established 
ongoing consultation procedures with the FLMs, which includes offering 
the FLMs an opportunity for consultation upon request and to comply 
with consultations requirements in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) 
for progress reports and plan revisions.
    b. State Responses to FLM Comments: To address 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), 
Florida provided responses to comments received from NPS in section 
10.4.1 of the 2021 Plan, which are summarized in brief below. In the 
2021 Plan, NPS comments received are located in appendices H-4 and H-5. 
Appendix H-4 contains documentation of a May 18, 2021, consultation 
call that NPS held with the FDEP. Representatives from FWS and USFS 
also attended. NPS requested clarification on why the Miami-Dade Water 
and Sewer Department facility was not selected for analysis. FDEP 
clarified that recent actual emissions are significantly lower due to 
the facility's use of lower sulfur content fuel, which the facility is 
expected to continue to use. Additionally, FDEP stated that the AoI 
analysis likely overpredicted this facility's impact at Everglades 
since this is a small source located very near the Class I area.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See section 7.6.3 of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the 2021 Plan states that NPS made recommendations to 
update the interest rates in the FFA cost analyses. NPS also noted that 
the Florida Everglades have not observed increases in nitrate 
concentrations on the 20 percent most impaired days and that it is the 
least impaired NPS Class I areas in the VISTAS region, thus the VISTAS-
wide methodologies used to select sources and pollutants for reasonable 
progress analyses were of no concern.
    FDEP also addresses NPS comments in the public participation 
section of the 2024 Supplement. NPS acknowledges FDEP's inclusion of 
the Mosaic-South Pierce facility in the supplement and recommends that 
FDEP include the facility's emission history and consider the 
additional information for Mosaic-South Pierce that NPS provided 
concerning the evaluation of an Idaho

[[Page 105533]]

facility with similar SAPs. In response, FDEP states that it determined 
that the use of post-process scrubbers for the dual adsorption process 
sulfuric acid plant at Mosaic-South Pierce was not considered to be 
cost-effective for the facility and that SO2 emission 
reductions were achieved through an SO2 emission limit in 
permit 1050055-037-AC, which was approved into Florida's SIP on August 
4, 2023 (88 FR 51702).
    3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to find that Florida addressed all 
FLM consultation requirements in the CAA and RHR. With respect to CAA 
169A(d), Florida consulted with the FLMs prior to the State's public 
comment periods \114\ and included a summary of the conclusions and 
recommendations of the FLMs in the proposed plans issued for public 
review.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ The consultation did not occur in person as stated in the 
CAA due to the convenience and efficiency of using email, phone 
calls, and video meetings.
    \115\ A description of Florida's response to FLM comments can be 
found in section 10.4, and under the public participation section of 
the Haze Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP fully addressed the requirement for FLM consultation under 40 
CFR 51.308(i)(2) because FDEP offered the draft Florida Haze Plan on 
April 2, 2021, prior to the start of FDEP's public comment period which 
opened on June 9, 2021, and closed on July 9, 2021. Additionally, FDEP 
offered the FLMs a review of the draft 2024 Supplement on June 8, 2023, 
prior to the start of the comment period on January 19, 2024.\116\ EPA 
proposes to find that Florida has met its requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(2) to consult with the FLMs on its Haze Plan for the second 
planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See the public participation section of the 2024 
Supplement for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Florida satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) by 
providing responses to the FLM comments in section 10.4.1 of the 2021 
Plan.
    EPA proposes to find that Florida satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) by 
establishing in its 2021 Plan continuing consultation procedures as 
summarized above.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed above in this 
preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference into Florida's 
SIP the following conditions from the listed FDEP Air Construction 
Permits: Conditions 7 and 28 in Subsection A of Section 3 of the Duke 
Crystal River Citrus Co. Combined Cycle Permit No. 0170004-047-AC 
(State-effective December 16, 2014); Condition 1 of Section 3 of the 
Duke Crystal River Permit No. 0170004-059-AC (State-effective October 
30, 2020); Conditions 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 
24 and 25 of Subsection A of Section 3 and Conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 
8 and 9 of Subsection B of Section 3 of the Georgia-Pacific Foley Mill 
Permit No. 1230001-121-AC (State-effective October 20, 2023); 
Conditions 9, 14(a), 31(a) of Section III of the JEA Northside Units 1 
and 2 Permit No. 0310045-003-AC (State-effective July 14, 1999), and 
Condition 2 of Subsection A of Section 3 of Permit No. 0310045-059-AC 
(State-effective February 16, 2023); Conditions 2, 5, and 6 of Section 
3 of the JEA Northside Unit 3 Permit Nos. 0310045-057-AC (State-
effective June 17, 2021), and Condition 2 of Subsection A of Section 3 
of Permit No. 0310045-062-AC (State-effective August 24, 2023); 
Condition 3 of Subsection A of Section 3 of the Seminole Generating 
Station Permit No. 1070025-037-AC (State-effective April 14, 2021); 
Conditions 12 and 13 of Subsection C of Section 3 of the TECO-Big Bend 
Permit No. 0570039-129-AC (State-effective August 11, 2020); and 
Conditions 2, 3, and 4 of Subsection A of Section 3 of the WestRock-
Fernandina Beach Mill Permit No. 0890003-072-AC (State-effective June 
24, 2021) and Condition 5 of Subsection A of Section 3 of Permit No. 
0890003-074-AC (State-effective December 16, 2021). EPA has made, and 
will continue to make, the SIP available through www.regulations.gov 
and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information).

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Florida's October 8, 2021, June 14, 
2024, and October 28, 2024, SIP submissions, as satisfying the regional 
haze requirements for the second planning period contained in 40 CFR 
51.308(f). Thus, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference into 
Florida's SIP the permit conditions identified in section V above.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice 
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's

[[Page 105534]]

Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 
2023) builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among 
other things, the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all 
people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal 
affiliation, or disability in agency decision-making and other Federal 
activities that affect human health and the environment.
    FDEP did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 
analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the 
nature of the action being proposed here, this proposed action is 
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the 
affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this 
proposed action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent 
with the stated goal of Executive Order 12898/14096 of achieving EJ for 
communities with EJ concerns.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon moNOXide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 19, 2024.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2024-30751 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```